The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, SERAP, has asked the Court of Appeal in Abuja to overturn the N100 million defamation judgment awarded against it in favour of two officers of the State Security Service, SSS.
The appeal, scheduled for hearing on Friday, challenges the May 5, 2026 judgment of the Federal Capital Territory High Court, including the finding of liability, damages and an order directing SERAP to publish an apology.
In its 24-ground appeal filed by its counsel, Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, SERAP argued that the two SSS officers failed to establish that publications made by the organisation referred specifically to them.
The case arose from publications by SERAP on September 9, 2024, concerning an alleged entry by SSS officers into 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.
The publications referred to SSS/DSS personnel using descriptions including “a tall, large, dark-skinned woman” and “a slim, dark-skinned man”, without naming the officers.
SERAP argued that the descriptions did not sufficiently identify the two claimants by name, rank, designation, office or photograph.
“The central issue in this appeal is whether the respondents established by credible evidence that the publications complained of referred to them,” the organisation said.
It argued that the trial court wrongly relied, among other things, on its own observation of the physical appearance of the claimants in court to establish their identities.
According to SERAP, the relevant question was whether the publications identified the officers when they were made, rather than whether the descriptions matched their appearance in court.
The organisation also challenged the N100 million damages awarded by the High Court, arguing that claims that the publications had affected the officers “mentally and psychologically” and had “gone viral” were not supported by sufficient evidence of specific professional, financial or reputational harm.
SERAP therefore described the award as excessive and arbitrary and urged the appellate court to set it aside.
The organisation also raised procedural objections to the suit, including the manner in which it was initially commenced against SERAP as a non-juristic entity before an amendment was made to name its incorporated trustees.
It further 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.
On the substance of the publications, SERAP argued that the statements should be assessed in their full factual context rather than by isolating terms such as “invasion”, “harassment”, “intimidation” and “unlawful”.
It maintained that its account concerned the conduct of security officials who visited its Abuja office without prior notice and that its characterisation 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.
The organisation also argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the substance of its publications was false or that it acted with actual malice.
SERAP 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 provision was particularly relevant to civil society organisations scrutinising public institutions and commenting 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.
The organisation urged the Court of Appeal to balance protection of reputation with constitutional protection of freedom of expression and set aside the judgment and consequential orders of the FCT High Court.
SERAP said it remained committed to lawful advocacy on human rights, accountability and the rule of law, arguing that civil society organisations should be able to scrutinise public institutions without disproportionate legal consequences.
Discussion0