SERAP petitions to reverse the N100 million judgment against DSS officials

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has lodged an appeal against the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja’s judgment dated May 5, 2026, which ordered it to pay N100 million in damages to two Department of State Services (DSS) officials for defamation.

SERAP called the decision “a travesty and a miscarriage of justice” and said it has also filed an application for a stay of execution while the appeal is being considered.

The appeal, submitted on Friday, May 8, 2026, by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Tayo Oyetibo on SERAP’s behalf, challenges what the organization describes as a legally flawed ruling.

SERAP explained that the notice of appeal will be amended once it obtains a Certified True Copy of the judgment, so that additional portions of the judgment that underscore its alleged defects can be included.

“Pending this, the appeal and the accompanying application for stay of execution already filed and served provide adequate legal protection for our organisation,” SERAP said.

Justice Yusuf Halilu had ordered SERAP to pay N100 million in damages to the DSS officials, issue public apologies, cover N1 million in litigation costs, and add 10 percent annual post‑judgment interest on the damages until full payment is made.

In its appeal, SERAP contended that the judgment rests on “fundamental legal and evidential errors” that affect both jurisdiction and fairness.

The organization argued that the trial court relied on defective evidence, including a witness statement that, according to SERAP, was not sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths as required by law.

SERAP is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the entire judgment rendered in suit number CV/4547/2024 and to dismiss the substantive case for lack of merit.

It maintains that the appeal raises important questions about whether a court can sustain proceedings based on a defective originating process or impose liability where the legal threshold for defamation has not been satisfied.

Among the grounds of appeal, SERAP asserts that the trial court wrongly permitted an amendment that substituted “Socio‑Economic Rights and Accountability Project,” which it characterises as a non‑juristic entity, with its incorporated trustees.

The organization argues that initiating an action against a non‑juristic person is fundamentally defective and cannot be cured by amendment.

SERAP also challenged the court’s finding that the allegedly defamatory statements referred personally to the claimants.

It contended that the publications neither named the DSS officials nor contained any unique identifiers linking the statements to them.

The organization said the court failed to apply the objective test for defamation established by the Supreme Court, relying instead on the subjective perception of DSS staff.

The appeal further disputes the trial court’s reliance on the first claimant’s witness statement, which SERAP says the claimant admitted under cross‑examination was signed in her lawyer’s chambers rather than before a Commissioner for Oaths.

SERAP also argued that the court did not uphold its defences of justification, qualified privilege and fair comment.

According to SERAP, it presented evidence showing that the disputed publication was substantially true and concerned a matter of public interest involving the conduct of DSS officers during an unannounced visit to its office.

Regarding damages, SERAP maintained that the claimants failed to prove actual harm, reputational injury or financial loss resulting from the publication.

It further asserted that the DSS officials lacked locus standi to sue in their personal capacities, since the publication referred to the DSS as an institution rather than to any specific individuals.

In its application for a stay of execution, SERAP warned that immediate enforcement of the judgment could cripple its operations.

“The effect of the decision of the court is that the operations of SERAP… will be severely disrupted, if not entirely shut down,” the organization stated.

It said enforcement would impair its ability to meet financial obligations, sustain ongoing human‑rights interventions, and continue advocacy work relied upon by thousands of beneficiaries across Nigeria.

SERAP argued that enforcing the judgment before the appeal is resolved would undermine its constitutional right of appeal and that the balance of convenience favours granting a stay.

The suit was instituted by DSS officials Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele.