Our Statements Factual, SERAP Tells Court In N5.5bn Defamation Suit

The Incorporated Trustees of the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project) (SERAP) has asked the Federal Capital Territory High (FCT) Court, Abuja, to dismiss a defamation claim brought by two operatives of Department of State Services (DSS), Sarah John and Gabriel Ogunleye.

SERAP insisted that its publications were lawful, factual and directed at the institution not the individuals.

SERAP, which is the 1st defendant in yhe suit marked CV/4547/2024, in its final written address, maintained that its September 9, 2024, statements on its verified X handle and official website accurately reported an incident at its Abuja office and raised legitimate concerns about official conduct within the bounds of public interest and free expression.

At yesterday’s proceeding, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), appeared as counsel to the claimant, while Victoria Bassey represented the 1st defendant and Oluwa Tosin appeared for the 2nd defendant.

The counsel informed the court that the matter was slated for adoption of final written addresses. However, Bassey drew the court’s attention to two pending applications, described as housekeeping matters, motions on notice seeking extension of time to file a reply on points of law, as well as extension of time to regularise the already filed processes.

The trial judge, Justice Yusuf Halilu, granted the applications as prayed.

Thereafter, Counsel to the claimant adopted the final written address and urged the court to uphold the defamation claim, insisting that the evidence before the court sufficiently established the allegations.

With all submissions taken, the court reserved judgment to a date to be communicated to parties.

The civil society organisation argued that its communications did not name the claimants and could not reasonably be construed as referring to them personally.

According to SERAP, the descriptions complained of were general and insufficient to identify any specific individuals within the DSS, stressing that no right-thinking person would read the publications as targeting the claimants.

SERAP further contended that its use of terms such as “invasion,” “intimidation,” and “harassment” reflected the organisation’s honest assessment of the incident as it unfolded at its premises, adding that the statements were made without malice and in defence of civic space and accountability.

On the allegation of reputational damage, SERAP submitted that any internal actions taken by the DSS against the claimants could not be attributed to its publications, arguing that the claimants failed to establish a direct causal link between the reports and any alleged suspension or investigation.

The civil society group also challenged the claimants’ reliance on identification by description, arguing that defamation law requires a clear nexus between the words complained of and the individuals alleging harm, an element it said the claimants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities.

SERAP urged the court to uphold the principles of truth, fair comment, and public interest, and to reject what it described as an attempt to stifle legitimate advocacy and reporting through defamation claims.

However, the claimants , two officials of DSS, Sarah john and Gabriel Ogunleye have urged the Court to hold the 1st defendant liable for alleged libel arising from publications made in September 2024.

The claimants, in their final written address contended that SERAP published false and malicious statements on its verified X (formerly Twitter) handle and official website, accusing DSS officers of “invading” its Abuja office, acting unlawfully, and engaging in intimidation and harassment.

According to the claimants, the disputed visit occurred on September 9, 2024, when they said they went to SERAP’s Abuja office on official instructions to conduct a lawful familiarisation meeting and make routine enquiries within the DSS’s statutory mandate.

They maintained that they identified themselves, signed the visitors’ register, and interacted politely with SERAP’s front desk officer, insisting that no harassment or intimidation took place.

They argued that SERAP’s publications; one on social media and another on its website were deliberately crafted to portray them as rogue operatives abusing power. The statements, they said, included physical descriptions that unmistakably referred to them, despite not mentioning their names.

The claimants further told the court that the publications were widely circulated and reached their colleagues and superiors at the DSS, leading to reputational damage, investigations, and suspension from duty.

In rejecting SERAP’s defence that the statements were directed at the DSS institution rather than the individuals, and that the claims were true, the claimants submitted that the evidence presented during trial had “demolished” those assertions.

They urged the court to find that they had proved all the essential elements of libel on a balance of probabilities and to grant the declaratory, injunctive, and monetary reliefs sought.