The Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday ordered the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project to pay N100m in damages to two officials of the Department of State Services over a defamatory publication on X.
Justice Yusuf Halilu, who delivered judgment in the suit marked FCT/HC/CV/4547/24, held that the claimants, DSS officials Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, successfully proved that SERAP’s publication on its official X handle was defamatory.
SERAP had, in a series of posts published on its X handle on September 9, 2024, alleged that officers of the State Security Service unlawfully occupied its office and demanded to see its directors.
The organisation wrote, “Officers from Nigeria’s State Security Service are presently unlawfully occupying SERAP’s office in Abuja, asking to see our directors.
“President Tinubu must immediately direct the SSS to end the harassment, intimidation, and attack on the rights of Nigerians.”
The claimants had sued SERAP and its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, as first and second defendants respectively.
They sought N5bn in damages, N50m as legal costs, a public apology to be published on SERAP’s website and in two national newspapers — The PUNCH and Vanguard — and aired on Channels Television and Arise Television, as well as 10 per cent annual interest on the judgment sum until liquidation.
The DSS officials alleged that SERAP falsely claimed that operatives of the service invaded its Abuja office in September 2024, an allegation they said damaged their reputations and that of the agency.
In the judgment, Justice Halilu held that SERAP, “a prominent reputable non governmental Organisation who pushes for transparency, accountability, and protection of economic and social rights, should also take cognisance of other people’s rights.”
The judge added that although SERAP focuses on issues such as corruption, poverty, inequality, and ensuring public resources benefit citizens, it must exercise caution in its publications.
“It is most necessary for care and due diligence to be taken by SERAP before tweeting or releasing any particular information with respect to the action of an agency of government for public consumption.
“In the exercise of their right, SERAP must equally beware of other people’s rights. The right to be able to tweet and then put information out there must correspondingly take into account the fact that other agencies, i.e. even government, have a right to be given a fair hearing as it relates to any such information”, the judge said.
The court further held that, “It is not in doubt that the said publication, which has gone viral, clearly affected the claimants mentally and psychologically.”
Justice Halilu noted that the claimants, who work as DSS personnel, were suspended pending investigation.
He added that the “defendants who had all the time to have retracted the said write-up failed to do so. Claimants clearly are entitled to be assuaged in damages from the antecedents of what had played out, having established that the publication by the defendant is unjustifiably libellous.
“The law will not stand still whilst the rest of the world goes on, and that will be bad for good. The law is an equal disperser of justice, and leaves none without a remedy for his right. It is a basic and elementary principle of common law that wherever there is a wrong, legal or injurious, that is, there ought to be a remedy to redress the wrong.”
Although the claimants sought N5bn, the judge awarded N100m as damages.
“It is my assessment that N100 million is a paltry sum that this court hereby awards against the defendants in favour of the claimants as damages,” Justice Halilu said.
The court also ordered the defendants to apologise to the claimants through SERAP’s website, X handle, The PUNCH and Vanguard newspapers, as well as Arise Television and Channels Television.
The court further awarded 10 per cent annual interest on the judgment sum from the date of judgment until liquidation, in addition to N1m cost of action.
Justice Halilu stressed that fundamental rights are not absolute.
“In the exercise of a right, we must be very careful because these rights are not open-ended. Your right ends where another person’s own begins,” he said.
The judge held that the defence of justification failed because the alleged invasion, harassment and intimidation by DSS officers was not established by evidence before the court.