The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has filed an appeal against the judgment of a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court that awarded N100 million damages to two officials of the Department of State Services (DSS) over alleged defamation.
SERAP, through its counsel, Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), filed the appeal on May 8 and also sought a stay of execution of the judgment pending the outcome of the appeal process.
The case was instituted by two DSS officials, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, after SERAP issued statements in September 2024 alleging that DSS operatives unlawfully invaded its Abuja office.
Delivering judgment on May 5, Justice Yusuf Halilu awarded N100 million damages in favour of the plaintiffs. The court also directed SERAP to publish public apologies, pay N1 million as litigation costs, and pay 10 percent annual post-judgment interest on the damages until the sum is fully settled.
Reacting in a statement on Tuesday, SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, described the judgment as “a travesty and a miscarriage of justice”.
According to the organisation, the ruling was based on “fundamental legal and evidential errors” affecting the court’s jurisdiction and the fairness of the proceedings.
“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 in its notice of appeal.
SERAP argued that the trial court relied on defective evidence, including a witness statement allegedly not sworn before a commissioner for oaths.
The organisation also faulted the court’s conclusion that the publications in question directly referred to the DSS officials.
“The publications complained of did not mention the respondents by name, rank, photograph, or any unique identifier,” SERAP argued.
It added that a pre-action letter from the DSS itself acknowledged that the publications were directed at the DSS as an institution and not at the individual claimants.
SERAP further contended that the suit was defective from the outset because it was initially filed against “SERAP”, which it described as a non-juristic entity, before later being amended to reflect its incorporated trustees.
