Explosive Twist: SERAP Rejects ₦100 Million Defamation Penalty, Takes DSS Fight Higher

The ruling was delivered in favour of two officials of the Department of State Services (DSS), Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele.

In a statement released on Tuesday by SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, the organisation disclosed that it had also filed an application requesting a stay of execution pending the outcome of the appeal.

The appeal, submitted on Friday by Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Tayo Oyetibo, contests the May 5, 2026 judgment delivered by Justice Yusuf Halilu.

The court had awarded ₦100 million in damages to the DSS officials over alleged defamatory publications. It also directed SERAP to issue public apologies, pay ₦1 million in legal costs, and pay a 10 percent annual post-judgment interest on the damages until full payment is made.

SERAP described the verdict as “a travesty and miscarriage of justice,” maintaining that the decision was flawed both legally and procedurally. The organisation added that it would amend its notice of appeal after obtaining the Certified True Copy of the judgment.

In its appeal, SERAP argued that the trial court relied on defective evidence, including a witness statement allegedly not sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths.

According to the organisation, the court erred in concluding that the publications specifically referred to the claimants personally, contrary to established legal principles guiding defamation cases. SERAP maintained that the lower court failed to apply the objective test established by the Supreme Court in Ologe v. New Africa Holdings Ltd and Abalaka v. Akinsete, which requires that allegedly defamatory words be interpreted by reasonable members of society at large, rather than by a restricted institutional audience.

The group further contended that the court relied heavily on the subjective interpretation of the DSS officials and their colleagues within the agency.

SERAP also argued that the court failed to properly consider its defences of justification, qualified privilege, and fair comment, insisting that the publications were substantially true and made in the public interest.

The organisation stated that the DSS officials did not establish reputational damage, financial loss, or any actual harm arising from the publications. It further argued that, under settled legal principles, an individual member of a large institution cannot sustain a defamation claim unless the words complained of clearly and directly identify that person.

According to SERAP, the DSS is a large institution and the statements in question did not specifically identify the respondents. Consequently, the organisation argued that the officials lacked the legal standing to sue and that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case.

SERAP is now asking the Court of Appeal to overturn the entire judgment and dismiss the suit for lacking merit.

In its application for a stay of execution, the organisation warned that enforcing the judgment could significantly disrupt its operations and hinder its ongoing work on human rights, transparency, and accountability initiatives.

SERAP noted that thousands of individuals and communities rely on its advocacy, investigations, and legal interventions, stressing that any interruption of its activities could have serious implications for public interest work and access to justice in Nigeria.

The organisation added that immediate enforcement of the judgment could undermine its constitutional right to appeal by limiting its ability to finance the appeal process. It therefore argued that the balance of convenience favours granting the stay of execution and related injunctive reliefs.