The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project has challenged the ₦100m defamation judgment against it, arguing that two State Security Service officers failed to prove that a publication by the organisation identified them personally.
The appeal will be heard by the Court of Appeal in Abuja on Friday, following SERAP’s challenge to the judgment delivered by the Federal Capital Territory High Court on May 5, 2026.
Justice Yusuf Halilu had awarded ₦100m in damages against SERAP in the defamation suit filed by the two SSS officers and ordered the organisation to publish an apology.
In its 24-ground appeal, filed by its counsel, Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, SERAP challenged the findings of liability, the damages awarded and the consequential orders.
The organisation argued that the publications complained of did not name the officers, identify their ranks or designations, or contain their photographs.
SERAP said the officers relied mainly on general physical descriptions, including references to “a tall, large, dark-skinned woman” and “a slim, dark-skinned man”, to establish that the publications referred to them.
“The central issue in this appeal is whether the respondents established by credible evidence that the publications complained of referred to them,” SERAP said.
It argued that no independent witness was called to establish that readers understood the descriptions to refer specifically to the two officers.
The case followed publications by SERAP on September 9, 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 and reverse fuel price increases.
SERAP maintained that the publications concerned the conduct of security officials and constituted commentary on a matter of legitimate public interest.
It further argued that criticism of public officials over the performance of their duties should not automatically amount to defamation, particularly where freedom of expression and public accountability are involved.
The organisation also challenged the trial court’s reliance on its own observation of the physical appearance of the claimants in determining that they matched the descriptions in the publications.
According to SERAP, the relevant question was whether the publications identified the officers when they were published, rather than whether they appeared to match the descriptions when they appeared before the court.
SERAP also raised procedural objections, challenging the competence of the original suit and the validity of one of the witness statements relied upon by the claimants.
It argued that the suit was initially filed against SERAP, which it described as a non-juristic entity, before the claimants amended the originating process to substitute it with the Incorporated Trustees of SERAP.
The organisation further argued that the damages awarded were excessive and unsupported by sufficient evidence of specific professional, financial or reputational harm suffered by the officers.
SERAP said the trial court relied partly on claims that the publication had affected the officers “mentally and psychologically” and had gone viral without sufficient evidence establishing the extent of the alleged damage.
The organisation urged the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment, damages and order for an apology, insisting that the case raises important questions about defamation, identification and the constitutional protection of freedom of expression.
“SERAP remains committed to lawful and evidence-based advocacy on matters affecting human rights, accountability and the rule of law,” it said.
The organisation added that civil society groups should be able to scrutinise and comment on the conduct of public institutions without being exposed to disproportionate legal consequences.
