By Seyi Odewale
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has asked the Court of Appeal in Abuja to overturn a ₦100 million defamation judgment entered against the organisation by the Federal Capital Territory High Court.
The appeal, which is scheduled for hearing on Friday, challenges the judgment delivered by Justice Yusuf Halilu on May 5, 2026, as well as the damages and other consequential orders made against SERAP.
In its appeal filed through its counsel, Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, SERAP raised 24 grounds, questioning the trial court’s findings on identification, evidence, defamation, freedom of expression and public-interest advocacy.
The organisation argued that the publications which formed the basis of the suit did not name the two State Security Service (SSS) officers who instituted the action and that the descriptions contained in the reports were insufficient to identify them individually.
“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,” SERAP said.
The dispute followed publications by SERAP on September 9, 2024, alleging that security officials 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 increases in fuel prices.
The reports referred to the officers using physical descriptions, including a tall, large, dark-skinned woman and a slim, dark-skinned man, without identifying them by name.
SERAP contended that the trial court placed undue reliance on evidence that did not establish how members of the public understood the publications to refer specifically to the claimants.
The organisation also challenged the evidential basis for the damages awarded, arguing that there was insufficient proof of specific professional, financial or reputational injury suffered by the respondents.
It further argued that the trial court improperly relied on its own observation of the physical appearance of the claimants to establish the missing link between the descriptions in the publications and their identities.
According to SERAP, the question before the court should have been whether a reasonable reader could identify the claimants from the publications when they were originally published.
The organisation also raised objections concerning the competence of the suit, arguing that the action was initially filed against a non-juristic entity before the claimants subsequently amended the originating process to substitute the Incorporated Trustees of SERAP.
SERAP maintained that such a defect could not be cured through amendment because the original process was fundamentally defective.
The organisation also challenged the validity of a witness statement on oath, arguing that one of the respondents had signed the statement at a lawyer’s chambers rather than before a Commissioner for Oaths.
On the substance of the publications, SERAP argued that the reports should have been considered within their full factual context rather than by isolating words such as “invasion”, “harassment”, “intimidation” and “unlawful”.
It maintained that the publications constituted comment on the conduct of security officials and concerned matters of legitimate public interest.
“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.
The organisation also relied on constitutional protection for freedom of expression, saying civil society organisations must retain the ability to scrutinise public institutions and comment on human rights, accountability and governance.
SERAP urged the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment, damages and consequential orders, arguing that the trial court failed to properly consider the defences available to the organisation.
It reaffirmed its commitment to evidence-based advocacy and called for a balance between protection of reputation and constitutional freedom of expression.
