Dare Babalola
Human rights advocate and media law expert, Richard Akinnola, has criticised a faction of the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), led by Debo Adeniran.
He faulted the group over its recent statement against the Socio-Economic and Accountability Project (SERAP) regarding a court judgment involving the Department of State Services (DSS).
In a press statement on Friday, Akinnola said his attention was drawn to the CDHR faction’s position on the matter.
He said the group allegedly faulted SERAP for what it described as defamation of two DSS officials.
The faction also urged the organisation to immediately comply with a Federal Capital Territory High Court ruling awarding ₦100 million in damages, despite SERAP’s indication that it intended to appeal the decision.
Akinnola said while he generally avoids public disagreements with colleagues in the human rights community, the public nature of the statement necessitated a response.
“I never knew a day like this would come when notable activists who had been in the struggle over the years would be publicly supporting a security agency against a member of their constituency,” he said.
He posed three questions to the CDHR faction, questioning what he described as inconsistency in its stance on court judgments and appeals.
First, he referenced the 1989 defamation case involving the late Gani Fawehinmi and security chiefs under General Ibrahim Babangida’s administration, noting that Fawehinmi had been ordered by a Lagos High Court to pay damages before his appeal, which he eventually won at the Court of Appeal.
“Why didn’t they take the same position then, by asking Gani Fawehinmi to immediately comply with the judgment before appeal?” he asked.
Also, Akinnola argued that SERAP had secured multiple judgments against the Federal Government over the years which, according to him, had not been complied with.
“Why hasn’t Debo Adeniran and his faction of CDHR called on the government to obey these judgments?” he queried, adding that the current insistence on immediate compliance appeared selective.
Third, he cited the 2017 arbitration ruling in the P&ID case, where a London tribunal awarded $6.6 billion against Nigeria, noting that the country challenged and later succeeded on appeal.
He said similar calls for immediate compliance were not made by the CDHR faction at the time.
Akinnola, who described himself as a teacher of media law with expertise in defamation, stressed that while freedom of expression must not be abused, parties dissatisfied with court judgments are entitled to exhaust their right of appeal.
“I would expect Debo’s faction and some characters who parade themselves as activists to wait until the appeal is exhausted,” he said, adding that their insistence on immediate compliance raised “questions about their intentions.”
He further drew historical parallels to the military era, alleging that some actors in the media space had previously aligned with authoritarian regimes against press freedom.
He cited past cases involving journalists during the Decree 4 era, noting that some individuals who resisted oppression were later celebrated, while others, in his words, faded into “historical anonymity.”
Akinnola concluded that public criticism of a fellow human rights organisation over a civil matter was questionable, warning that such actions could set a troubling precedent.
“To use the words of Gani Fawehinmi, it is ‘egregiously impudent,’” he added.
“This too shall pass,” he stated.
