The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project has filed an appeal against the N100 million defamation judgment delivered by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, in favour of officials of the Department of State Services.
In a statement issued by SERAP Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, the organisation confirmed that it had also filed an application seeking a stay of execution of the judgment pending the determination of the appeal.
The appeal, filed by senior advocate Tayo Oyetibo, challenges the judgment delivered earlier this month by Justice Yusuf Halilu, which awarded N100 million in damages to DSS officials Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele over alleged defamation.
The trial court also ordered SERAP to publish public apologies, pay N1 million in litigation costs, and remit a 10 per cent annual post-judgment interest on the damages until the sum is fully paid.
Reacting to the ruling, SERAP described the judgment as “a travesty and miscarriage of justice,” insisting that the decision was both legally and procedurally defective.
According to the organisation, its notice of appeal would be amended after obtaining the Certified True Copy of the judgment to include additional grounds highlighting alleged defects in the ruling.
In its appeal, SERAP argued that the trial court relied on defective evidence, including a witness statement allegedly not sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths.
“The lower court erred in law in holding that the words complained of were published of and concerning the Claimants personally, contrary to the established objective test for identification in the tort of defamation,” the appeal partly read.
SERAP further argued that the court failed to apply legal principles established by the Supreme Court in Ologe v. New Africa Holdings Ltd and Abalaka v. Akinsete, which require that allegedly defamatory statements must clearly identify a claimant in the eyes of reasonable members of society.
“The lower court erroneously relied on the subjective perception of the respondents and their colleagues within the Department of State Services,” the organisation stated.
The rights group also maintained that the trial court failed to uphold its defences of justification, qualified privilege, and fair comment, insisting that the publications in question were substantially true and made in the public interest.
SERAP argued that the DSS officials failed to prove reputational injury, financial loss, or any actual harm arising from the publications.
“The DSS is a large institution, and the words complained of did not specifically, directly, or uniquely identify the Respondents,” the appeal stated.
“The Respondents had no locus standi to maintain an action against SERAP. The lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Respondents’ action.”
SERAP is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the entire judgment and dismiss the suit for lacking merit.
In its application for stay of execution, the organisation warned that enforcing the judgment could disrupt its operations and negatively affect ongoing human rights, transparency, and accountability programmes across Nigeria.
“Thousands of individuals and communities depend on SERAP’s work, including victims of human rights violations and beneficiaries of its advocacy, investigations, and legal interventions. Halting our operations would have far-reaching consequences for public interest work and access to justice in Nigeria,” the organisation said.
SERAP added that immediate enforcement of the judgment could hinder its ability to finance and pursue the appeal process effectively.
“The enforcement of the judgment would deprive SERAP of its constitutional right of appeal, as it would be unable to adequately finance the prosecution of its appeal to the Court of Appeal,” it stated.
The organisation further noted that the case raises broader concerns about civic space, freedom of advocacy, and the ability of civil society organisations to operate without undue interference.
