Defamation case: SERAP files appeal against ₦100 million judgment favoring DSS officials

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project has filed an appeal against the ₦100 million defamation judgment delivered against it by the Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja in favour of officials of the Department of State Services.

In a statement issued on Tuesday by SERAP Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, the organisation described the judgment delivered on May 5, 2026, by Justice Yusuf Halilu as “a travesty and a miscarriage of justice.”

According to SERAP, the appeal was filed on Friday, May 8, 2026, by senior advocate Tayo Oyetibo, alongside an application seeking a stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal.

SERAP stated, “The Notice of Appeal already filed will be amended upon receipt of the Certified True Copy of the judgment to incorporate key portions of the judgment that further highlight its flawed nature.”

The organisation added that the appeal and accompanying application for stay of execution provide “adequate legal protection” pending further proceedings.

Justice Halilu had ordered SERAP to pay ₦100 million in damages to DSS officials, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, over publications made on SERAP’s X handle alleging that DSS operatives unlawfully occupied its Abuja office in September 2024.

The court also ordered the organisation to publish apologies on its website, in newspapers, and on television stations, in addition to paying ₦1 million litigation costs and 10 per cent annual post‑judgment interest until full payment.

In its appeal, SERAP argued that the judgment was “legally defective, procedurally flawed, and unsupported by evidence.”

“The decision rests on fundamental legal and evidential errors that go to the root of jurisdiction and fairness in adjudication. The court’s decision is therefore perverse and a nullity,” SERAP stated.

The organisation further argued that the trial court relied on defective evidence, including a witness statement that it claimed was not sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths.

“The lower court erred in law by relying on the witness statement on oath of the 1st Respondent when the 1st Respondent admitted under cross‑examination that the said statement was not sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths,” it said.

SERAP also challenged the court’s finding on defamation, arguing that the publications did not directly identify the DSS officials personally.

“The publications complained of did not mention the Respondents by name, rank, photograph, or any