Why Court Ruled In Favour Of DSS Operatives In Defamation Suit Against SERAP

By Collins Olotor

Many erroneously hold the view that public institutions and their officials are to be criticised and accountability demanded from them at will, while they are only required to provide explanations and must not complain, even where wrongly portrayed and disparaged.

As a result, it is gradually becoming a pattern that individuals and groups, claiming the exercise of their democratic and constitutional rights, impugn the integrity of public institutions and their officials in the name of criticism, with scant regard for facts and accuracy.

These worrying trends were however, recently addressed in a judgment handed down by a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in a suit, marked: CV/4547/2024, filed by two officials of the Department of State Services (DSS), who claimed to have been defamed in publications made by a group, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).

In the judgment delivered on May 5, 2026 by Justice Yusuf Halilu, the court held emphatically that the rights guaranteed by the country’s Constitution, exercisable in a democracy, under which citizens and groups could criticise and demand accountability from state’s institutions and officials, do not translate to the freedom to  be reckless and lawless.

Facts of the case

The claimants – Sarah John and Gabriel Ogunleye – claimed to have visited SERAP’s Abuja office on September 9, 2024 in the course of a routine official assignment, but that shortly after their visit, the group made a false post on its X (twitter) handle, claiming among others that DSS officials were unlawfully occupying its Abuja office.

They stated that the tweet was not only retweeted 4000 times by other X (twitter) users, including media organisations, it was liked by over 7000 others, making it one of the most engaged tweets ever posted by SERAP on its X account.

The claimants also stated that the group followed up with a subsequent publication on its website, which was republished by both online and conventional media houses, falsely claiming the DSS officials invaded its Abuja office and subjected its staff to intimidation, harassment and attack.

They claimed that the two false publications did not only expose  their organisation to undue public condemnation and criticism, it portrayed them (claimants) as being lawless, incompetent and unprofessional.

Effects of the publications

John and Ogunleye stated that, as a result of the false publications by SERAP, they were subjected to the internal disciplinary mechanisms of their organisation, leading to their suspension from duties pending the outcome of the investigation that was subsequently conducted.

The claimants described the publications as libelous on the grounds that they neither invade nor raid SERAP’s Abuja office, adding that they also did not intimidate, harass or interrogate any member of its staff as the group claimed.

SERAP’s defence

The defendants – SERAP and its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare – denied the claimants’  allegations and stood by the content of their publications.

SERAP and Oluwadare stated that they were justified to have made the publications, insisting among others, that the claimants invaded and raided SERAP’s Abuja office and subjected its staff to harassment and intimidation.

They queried the competence of the suit on, among others grounds, that the claimants could not claim to have been defamed because they were not identified by names in the publications, which the defendants claimed, were directed at the DSS as an organisation.

Court’s findings

In the judgment, the court found among others, that the claimants clearly established, through credible evidence, the six coterminous ingredients required to be proved to succeed in a defamation suit.

It also found that, contrary to the defendants’ claim that the claimants were not identified in the publications, the description of the claimants as “a tall, large, dark-skinned woman” and “a  slim, dark-skinned man” constituted sufficient identification.

The court held that “it is not the law that a claimant, as in this case, needs to be named in a  publication before an action for defamation can be maintained. Defamatory words could refer to a person by description, implication, context and or circumstance.

“What is instructive is whether reasonable persons, who are seised of the relevant facts would understand the publication and link same to the claimant.

“This is innuendo, which is an indirect, often suggestive hint, insinuation, or allusion, typically intended to be derogatory, mean-spirited. It uses seemingly polite or innocent words to convey a hidden, negative, or risqué meaning.”

It equally found that the claimants established the publication of the libelous materials through their second witness, who said he read the said publications and knew they referred to the claimants from the way they were described.

The court held that the defendants’ argument that the claimants were not mentioned in the publications was of moment, because they (the defendants) did not deny making the publications, in which the body features of the claimants were described.

It stated that the argument of the defendants that the names of the claimants were not mentioned in the publication “is neither here nor there, as defendants seem to be blowing hot and cold at the same time.

“I say this with every sense of modesty and responsibility, because defendants have not denied the fact that they are responsible for the publication of Exhibits “2” and “3” which specifically mentioned DSS and the description of the personnel that allegedly invaded SERAP’s office in Abuja.”

The court said it took judicial notice of the features of the claimants when they appeared before the court, in line with the provision of Section 122 of Evidence Act 2011.

It said SERAP’s description of the visiting DSS officials as “a tall, large, dark-skinned and a slim dark-skinned woman and man” in its publications, suits the claimants me,” following which it held “that the claimants have been able to prove that the said publication referred to them.”

The court also found that the resultant subjection of the claimants to their employer’s disciplinary mechanisms, which led to their suspension as a result of the publications, constituted injuries to them in many forms, including to their profession.

It equally found that the defendants’ allegations that the claimants invaded their office, subjected staff to intimidation and harassment were not supported by the evidence they led.

The court noted that the first witness of the defendants, who interacted with the claimants, admitted that their conversation was casual, while the second witness (Oluwadare) admitted that they (the claimants) did not force their way into SERAP’s Abuja office and did not brandish any weapon to intimidate anyone.

It added: “Falsity of the defamatory words is the last ingredient to establish the tort of defamation.” He found that the defendants failed to support their claims with any evidence as required.

The court said: “It is the law that once claimants, as in this case, have established the existence of written publication, which referred to them, with defamatory meaning, which is false, the evidential burden of proof shifts to the defendants to prove that what they published is true by way of justification.

“The defendants, who relied on justification as their line of defence, have a responsibility to prove the truth of the words contained in Exhibits “2” and “3” in their ordinary and natural meaning. This, I must say, the defendants have woefully failed to so do from their evidence before the court.

“Defendants’ defence of justification of the published inciting defamatory words has been left in limbo to wither away as judicial gate-crasher that has, by settled case laws, been consigned to a forlorn heap of legal fossil.

“It is the law, as it relates to libel, that once it is published against a named person and without any justification, the cause of action is complete. The law cannot command impossibility. The essence of justice is to do what is true and correct. I say no more,” the court said.

The verdict

The court upheld that case of the claimants, as made out by their lawyer, Oluwagbemileke Kehinde of the law firm of Kehinde and Partners LP and held that John and Ogunleye successfully proved their case.

It further held that the defendants were reckless in their handling of the situation, particularly the publications, which were found to be replete with false claims.

As a word of caution for the defendants, the court said: “It is therefore most necessary for care and diligence to be SERAP’S watchwords,” adding that, in the exercise of their rights, SERAP and its staff must always remember that others also have rights that must be protected.

The court awarded N100million damages against the defendants; ordered them to tender an apology to the claimants through SERAP’s website and X handle, two national daily newspapers and two television stations “for falsely accusing the claimants of unlawfully invading the first defendant’s (SERAP’s) office and interrogating the first defendant’s staff.”

It also ordered the defendants to pay interest on the N100m at the rate of 10 percent per annum from the date of the delivery of the judgment until the judgment sum is paid. The court equally ordered the defendants to pay to the claimants, N1m as costs of the action.

Implications of the judgment

Law experts have continued to commend the erudition displayed by the court in the determination of the case. They have also commented on the decision’s implication for the activities of individuals and groups, who have now found a profession in the criticism of state’s institutions and their officials.

Among such law experts is Peter Mrakpor (SAN), who noted that the decision carries broader institutional implications for public discourse involving security agencies in the country.

According to him, the judgment affirms the principle that security personnel deserve equal protection under the law and cannot be subjected to reputational attacks simply because they serve in state’s institutions.

He added that the decision “underscores the need for responsible advocacy and fact-based reporting, especially in matters involving national security institutions.

“It reinforces judicial willingness to protect public officers from
defamatory narratives, where such narratives are unsupported by evidence. It demonstrates that courts will carefully scrutinize publications, capable of creating public hostility against identifiable officers of state institutions,” Mrakpor (SAN) said.

~Olotor is a public affairs analyst.