The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has appealed the ₦100 million defamation judgment delivered against it by the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
Papers News reports that the judgment was delivered in favour of two officials of the Department of State Services (DSS), Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele.
In a statement issued on Tuesday by SERAP Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, the organisation said it had also filed an application seeking a stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal.
The appeal, filed on Friday by Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, challenged the May 5, 2026 judgment delivered by Justice Yusuf Halilu.
The court had awarded N100m in damages to the DSS officials over alleged defamation.
It also ordered SERAP to publish public apologies, pay N1m in litigation costs and a 10 per cent annual post-judgment interest on the damages until fully paid.
SERAP described the ruling as “a travesty and miscarriage of justice,” arguing that the judgment was legally and procedurally flawed.
The organisation said it would amend its notice of appeal after obtaining the Certified True Copy of the judgment.
In the appeal, SERAP argued that the trial court relied on defective evidence, including a witness statement allegedly not sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths.
It stated, “The lower court erred in law in holding that the words complained of were published of and concerning the Claimants personally, contrary to the established objective test for identification in the tort of defamation.
“Particulars Of Error: the lower court failed to apply the objective test laid down by the Supreme Court in Ologe v. New Africa Holdings Ltd and Abalaka v. Akinsete, which requires that words be understood as referring to the claimant by right-thinking members of society generally, not by a specialised or institutional group.
“The lower court erroneously relied on the subjective perception of the respondents and their colleagues within the Department of State Services.”
SERAP also argued that the court failed to uphold its defences of justification, qualified privilege and fair comment.
It insisted that the publications were substantially true and made in the public interest.
The organisation said the DSS officials failed to prove reputational injury, financial loss or actual harm from the publications.
It stated, “The lower court failed to apply the settled principle of law that an individual member of a large class, body, or institution cannot maintain an action for defamation unless the words complained of clearly and specifically identify that individual.
“The DSS is a large institution, and the words complained of did not specifically, directly, or uniquely identify the Respondents.
“The Respondents had no locus standi to maintain an action against SERAP. The lower court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Respondents’ action.”
SERAP is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the entire judgment and dismiss the suit for lacking merit.
In its application for stay of execution, the organisation warned that enforcing the judgment could severely disrupt its operations and affect ongoing human rights, transparency and accountability programmes.
It said, “Thousands of individuals and communities depend on SERAP’s work, including victims of human rights violations and beneficiaries of its advocacy, investigations, and legal interventions. Halting our operations would have far-reaching consequences for public interest work and access to justice in Nigeria.
“SERAP is committed to pursuing the appeal diligently and in accordance with the rule of law. The case raises broader concerns about the protection of civic space, the ability of civil society organisations to operate without undue interference, and the importance of safeguarding public interest advocacy.
“The enforcement of the judgment would deprive SERAP of its constitutional right of appeal, as it would be unable to adequately finance the prosecution of its appeal to the Court of Appeal. The balance of convenience is in favour of the granting of this application and/or making of the injunctive order sought.”
