Dare Babalola
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, which awarded ₦100 million in damages to officials of the Department of State Services (DSS) in a defamation suit.
The judgment, delivered on 5 May 2026 by Justice Yusuf Halilu, also ordered SERAP to publish public apologies, pay ₦1 million in litigation costs, and an additional 10 percent annual post-judgment interest until full payment of the awarded sum.
In a statement on Tuesday, SERAP described the ruling as “a travesty and a miscarriage of justice,” adding that it has already filed a Notice of Appeal alongside an application for stay of execution of the judgment.
The appeal, filed on 8 May 2026 through counsel Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, seeks to halt enforcement of the ruling pending determination by the Court of Appeal.
According to SERAP, the decision of the trial court is “legally flawed, procedurally defective, and a nullity,” arguing that it was reached on “fundamental errors of law and evidence that go to jurisdiction and fair hearing.”
The organisation also said it would amend its Notice of Appeal upon receipt of the Certified True Copy of the judgment to incorporate additional grounds, while maintaining that its current filings already provide legal protection against enforcement.
In its appeal, SERAP is asking the appellate court to set aside the entire judgment in Suit No: CV/4547/2024 and dismiss the substantive claim filed by DSS officials Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele.
The organisation further argued that the trial court relied on “defective evidence,” including a witness statement not sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths, which it said ought to have been discountenanced.
SERAP also faulted the ruling on several grounds, including alleged misapplication of defamation law, improper identification of the claimants, and failure to apply the objective test for determining whether defamatory words referred to the plaintiffs.
It maintained that the publications in question did not name or uniquely identify the claimants and that the court wrongly relied on subjective interpretations within the DSS rather than the understanding of ordinary members of the public.
The organisation also argued that the court erred in allowing an amendment that substituted a non-juristic entity with a juristic person, insisting that the original suit was fundamentally defective and outside the court’s jurisdiction.
SERAP further contended that the trial court failed to properly consider its defences of justification, qualified privilege, and fair comment, adding that the publications were based on matters of public interest involving alleged conduct of security officials.
It also challenged the award of damages, arguing that the claimants failed to prove any reputational or financial harm arising from the publications.
Meanwhile, in a separate motion, SERAP is seeking a stay of execution and an injunction restraining enforcement of the judgment pending appeal.
The organisation warned that execution of the ruling could severely disrupt its operations, including its human rights programmes, advocacy work, and staff obligations.
It said: “If this judgment is executed, it would potentially cripple SERAP’s operations… with dire consequences for its continued existence and the livelihoods of those dependent on it.”
SERAP added that thousands of individuals and communities relying on its work could be affected if its activities are halted, stressing that it remains committed to pursuing the appeal in accordance with the rule of law.
The suit was originally instituted by DSS officials Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele.
