SERAP, SSS Officers Face Off At Appeal Court Over N100m Defamation Award

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has asked the Court of Appeal in Abuja to overturn a N100 million defamation judgment against it, arguing that two State Security Service (SSS) officers, who filed the suit, failed to show that the organisation’s publications referred specifically to them.

The appeal, fixed for hearing on Friday, challenges a judgment delivered by Justice Yusuf Halilu of the Federal Capital Territory High Court on May 5, 2026.

The court found SERAP liable for defamation and ordered it to pay N100 million in damages and publish an apology to the two officers.

Read Also: NAFDAC Disowns Viral Fake Products List

In its Appellant’s Brief of Argument, filed by its counsel, Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), it raised 24 grounds of appeal, challenging the findings of liability, the assessment of damages and the consequential orders made by the trial court.

SERAP’s central argument is that neither publication named the two officers or identified them by rank, designation, office or photograph.

The organisation also argued that descriptions in the publications—including “a tall, large, dark-skinned woman” and “a slim, dark-skinned man”—were generic physical descriptions and could not, without further evidence, establish that the publications referred to the particular officers who brought the suit.

The Appellant further maintained that the respondents called no independent witness to show that reasonable members of the public who read the publications understood them to refer specifically to the two officers.

It also criticised the trial court for relying, among other things, on its own observation of the respondents’ physical appearance in court to establish identification.

SERAP said the relevant question was whether the publications identified the officers when they were published—not whether the officers appeared to fit the descriptions when they later appeared before the judge.

The dispute arose from publications SERAP made on September 9, 2024, about an alleged visit by SSS/DSS officers to the organisation’s Abuja office.

The publications followed SERAP’s call on President Bola Tinubu to investigate alleged corruption at the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) and reverse fuel price increases.

SERAP described the incident as an invasion and alleged that security officials had harassed and intimidated the organisation. The two officers later sued, arguing that the publications defamed them.

In its appeal, SERAP maintained that the publications should be read as a whole and in their proper factual context. It argued that the comments concerned the conduct of security officials carrying out public functions.

The organisation said its description of the incident commented on a matter of legitimate public interest, and that the officers’ disagreement with its account did not, by itself, establish defamation.

SERAP further argued that the trial court failed to properly consider its defences, including justification and qualified privilege, and that there was insufficient evidence of falsity or actual malice.

It also challenged the N100 million damages award, saying the respondents had provided insufficient evidence of specific professional, financial or reputational harm.

SERAP faulted the trial court’s reliance on claims that the publications had affected the officers “mentally and psychologically” and had “gone viral”, arguing there was insufficient evidence of the publication’s reach or the specific harm allegedly suffered.

SERAP is also challenging the competence of the proceedings on procedural grounds.

It argued that the plaintiffs initially brought the action against SERAP, which it described as a non-juridical entity, before amending the originating process to substitute the Incorporated Trustees of SERAP.

SERAP contends that this defect was fundamental and could not be cured by amendment.

The organisation is also challenging the competence of the first respondent’s witness statement on oath, alleging that it was signed at her lawyers’ chambers rather than before a Commissioner for Oaths.

SERAP argued that adopting the statement later in court could not cure what it described as a fundamental defect in how it was sworn.

On freedom of expression, SERAP urged the appellate court to balance protecting individual reputation with the constitutional right to freedom of expression, particularly when speech concerns the conduct of security agencies and other public institutions.

It relied on Section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which protects the freedom to hold opinions and impart information and ideas.

The organisation argued that public officials and security agency officers are not immune from legitimate criticism of how they perform their public functions.

SERAP is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the judgment, the ₦100 million damages award and the order requiring it to publish an apology.

It also urged the appellate court to uphold the requirements of evidence and due process in defamation claims, particularly when publications concern matters of public interest and the conduct of public institutions.