Judge Okays Start Of N5bn Defamation Suit by DSS Against SERAP

A court of the Federal Capital Territory (FTC) has fixed March 21 to begin a definite hearing on a case of defamation filed by two officers of the Department of State Services (DSS) against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).

The DSS officers filed a defamation suit against SERAP last October after the organisation failed to apologise for accusing the DSS officials of unlawfully invading its Abuja office a month earlier.

Among the reliefs sought by the DSS officers are N5 billion in damages and an apology published on SERAP’s website, social media, national newspapers and TV Stations. In addition, N50 million was spent on legal costs and 10 per cent of the annual interest on N5 billion until payment is made in full.
When the matter came up for a definitive hearing on Wednesday, the 11th, SERAP’s legal team raised several interlocutory applications and objections. The objections centred on the court’s jurisdiction, that they were not adequately served, and that the DSS officials lacked legal standing to sue since they were affiliated with the Agency.

Counsel to the second defendant, Hannan Anyowale, prayed the court to discount the plaintiff’s counter affidavit and grant their application to strike out the matter.
Also, Divine Oguru, who appeared for the first defendant, SERAP, adopted the submissions of the second defendant.

However, the presiding judge, Yusuf Halilu, said all the processes for a definite hearing were intact and that the court was ready to begin hearing into the matter.

This was as he wondered why the second defendant had already filed a defence on the matter.
However, he urged that the defendants submit whatever objections they have to the court so they can be determined and a hearing can commence.

The judge said this was to avoid going back and forth.

He adjourned the hearing to next week after council consultations on the matter.
Meanwhile, counsel to the plaintiff A T. Kehinde SAN, who appeared with two others, described the defendant’s submission as lacking in merit and aimed at annoying, frustrating and wasting the court’s time.

He said they had responded to all the objections and were ready for the hearing to begin.