The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has asked the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja to set aside a ₦100 million defamation judgment awarded against it by the Federal Capital Territory High Court in favour of two officers of the State Security Service (SSS).
The appeal is scheduled for hearing on Friday.
SERAP, in its appeal against the judgment delivered by Justice Yusuf Halilu on May 5, 2026, is challenging the finding of liability, the award of damages and consequential orders, including the directive that it publish an apology.
In its Appellant’s Brief of Argument, dated September 3, 2026 and filed by its counsel, Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, SERAP raised 24 grounds of appeal, including issues concerning identification in defamation claims, the evidential burden on claimants, the competence of evidence relied upon by the trial court and the constitutional protection of freedom of expression.
The organisation argued that the two SSS officers failed to establish that the publications complained of referred specifically to them.
SERAP said: “The central issue in this appeal is whether the respondents established by credible evidence that the publications complained of referred to them. 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.”
The suit arose from publications made by SERAP on September 9, 2024, alleging that SSS officers 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 (NNPCL) and reverse fuel price increases.
The publications referred to officers of the SSS/DSS and included descriptions such as “a tall, large, dark-skinned woman” and “a slim, dark-skinned man”. The officers were not named.
SERAP argued that the descriptions were insufficient to establish that the publications referred specifically to the two claimants.
It contended that neither publication identified the officers by name, rank, designation, office or photograph, adding that no independent witness was called to establish that members of the public understood the descriptions to refer to the claimants.
According to the organisation, the trial court improperly relied, among other things, on its own observation of the physical appearance of the claimants in court to establish the missing link between the publications and their identities.
SERAP argued that the issue before the court was whether the publications identified the claimants when they were published, rather than whether they fitted the descriptions when they appeared in court.
The organisation also challenged the evidence relied upon by the trial court in awarding damages.
It argued that assertions that the publications had affected the claimants “mentally and psychologically” and had “gone viral” were not supported by sufficient evidence showing the extent of the publication or specific professional, financial or reputational injury suffered.
SERAP therefore described the ₦100 million award as excessive and arbitrary, urging the appellate court to set it aside.
SERAP challenges suit, evidence
The organisation also raised procedural objections to the suit, arguing that the action was initially commenced against the Incorporated Trustees of SERAP only after an amendment, having originally been filed against SERAP as a non-juristic entity.
It contended that an action commenced against a non-juristic person was fundamentally defective and that an amendment could not cure what it described as a void originating process.
SERAP further challenged the validity of the witness statement on oath of the first respondent, alleging that it was signed at her lawyers’ chambers rather than before a Commissioner for Oaths.
It argued that the defect could not be cured by the subsequent adoption of the statement in open court.
On the substance of the publications, SERAP argued that the statements should have been considered in their full factual and contextual setting rather than by isolating words such as “invasion”, “harassment”, “intimidation” and “unlawful”.
The organisation maintained that its publications concerned the conduct of security officials who visited its Abuja office without prior notice and whose presence, according to SERAP, generated concerns and interactions with its staff.
It argued that its characterisation of those 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, adding that disagreement with its account did not, by itself, establish defamation.
SERAP also argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the substance of its publications was false or that it acted with actual malice.
Freedom of expression
The organisation further relied on Section 39(1) of the Constitution, which protects freedom of expression and the right to impart information and ideas.
It argued that the constitutional protection was particularly relevant to civil society organisations involved in 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.
It maintained that the protection of reputation must be balanced against the constitutional protection of freedom of expression, particularly where the subject concerns the conduct of security agencies and other public authorities.
SERAP urged the Court of Appeal to uphold what it described as the requirements of due process and constitutional protection of freedom of expression, and to set aside the judgment and consequential orders of the FCT High Court.
The organisation said it remained committed to lawful and evidence-based advocacy on human rights, accountability and the rule of law, stressing that civil society organisations should be able to scrutinise public institutions without facing disproportionate legal consequences.
The post SERAP challenges ₦100m DSS defamation award at appeal court appeared first on Vanguard News.