The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has appealed against a N100 million defamation judgment awarded by the Federal Capital Territory High Court in favour of two Department of State Services (DSS) officials.
The Court of Appeal in Abuja is scheduled to hear the appeal on Friday.
SERAP is challenging the judgment delivered by Justice Halilu Yusuf on May 5, 2026, including the finding of liability, the damages awarded and orders directing the organisation to publish an apology.
In its Appellant’s Brief of Argument dated September 3, 2026 and filed by its counsel, Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, SERAP raised 24 grounds of appeal. The grounds cover issues including identification in defamation cases, the evidential burden on claimants, the admissibility and competence of evidence relied upon by the trial court, and the constitutional protection of freedom of expression.
The organisation argued that the two DSS officials failed to prove that the publications in question specifically referred to them.
SERAP said: “The central issue in this appeal is whether the respondents established by credible evidence that the publications complained of referred to them. The publications did not name the respondents, and the descriptions relied upon were general physical descriptions which did not, without more, identify the particular individuals who brought the action.”
The case arose from publications made by SERAP in September 2024, alleging that DSS officers had unlawfully entered its Abuja office after the organisation called on President Bola Tinubu to investigate alleged corruption at the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) and reverse fuel price increases.
The publications referred to DSS officers using descriptions including “a tall, large, dark-skinned woman” and “a slim, dark-skinned man”, without naming the officers.
SERAP argued that the descriptions were insufficient to establish that the publications referred specifically to the two claimants.
It maintained that neither publication identified the officers by name, rank, designation, office or photograph. It also argued that no independent witness was called to show that members of the public understood the descriptions to refer to the claimants.
The organisation further argued that the trial court improperly relied, among other factors, on its own observation of the physical appearance of the claimants in court to establish the connection between the publications and their identities.
SERAP said the key question was whether the publications identified the claimants at the time they were published, rather than whether the descriptions matched their appearance when they appeared in court.
The organisation also challenged the evidence used by the trial court in awarding damages.
It argued that claims that the publications had affected the claimants “mentally and psychologically” and had “gone viral” were not backed by sufficient evidence showing the extent of their circulation or any specific professional, financial or reputational damage suffered.
SERAP consequently described the N100 million award as excessive and arbitrary and urged the appellate court to set it aside.
SERAP challenges suit, evidence
SERAP also raised procedural objections to the case, arguing that the action was initially instituted against the Incorporated Trustees of SERAP only after an amendment, having originally been filed against SERAP as a non-juristic entity.
It argued that a case commenced against a non-juristic person was fundamentally defective and that an amendment could not cure what it described as a void originating process.
The organisation also challenged the validity of the first respondent’s witness statement on oath, alleging that it was signed at her lawyers’ chambers rather than before a Commissioner for Oaths.
It maintained that the defect could not be cured by the subsequent adoption of the statement in open court.
On the substance of the publications, SERAP argued that the statements should have been assessed in their full factual and contextual setting rather than through isolated words such as “invasion”, “harassment”, “intimidation” and “unlawful”.
The organisation maintained that its publications concerned the conduct of security officials who visited its Abuja office without prior notice and whose presence, according to SERAP, caused concerns and interactions with its staff.
It argued that its description of the events amounted to comment on a matter of legitimate public interest.
“SERAP’s assessment and characterisation of those events constituted comment on a matter of legitimate public interest,” it said, adding that disagreement with its account did not, by itself, establish defamation.
SERAP also argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the substance of its publications was false or that it acted with actual malice.
Freedom of expression
The organisation further relied on Section 39(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression and the right to impart information and ideas.
It argued that the constitutional protection was particularly relevant to civil society organisations that scrutinise public institutions and comment on human rights, accountability and the rule of law.
“Officers of a public security agency do not, by virtue of their office, become immune from legitimate criticism concerning the manner in which public functions are performed,” SERAP argued.
It maintained that the protection of reputation must be balanced against the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, particularly where the subject concerns the conduct of security agencies and other public authorities.
SERAP urged the Court of Appeal to uphold what it described as the requirements of due process and constitutional protection of freedom of expression, and to set aside the FCT High Court’s judgment and consequential orders.
The organisation said it remained committed to lawful and evidence-based advocacy on human rights, accountability and the rule of law, stressing that civil society organisations should be able to scrutinise public institutions without facing disproportionate legal consequences.