The Federal Capital Territory High Court in Abuja is set to deliver judgment on Tuesday in a N5.5 billion defamation suit filed by two operatives of the Department of State Services against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project.
The suit, instituted by DSS officers Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, stems from allegations made by SERAP in September 2024 that security operatives unlawfully occupied its Abuja office and demanded access to its directors.
In posts shared on its social media platform at the time, SERAP accused the State Security Service of intimidation and rights violations.
The organisation stated, “Officers from Nigeria’s State Security Service are presently unlawfully occupying SERAP’s office in Abuja, asking to see our directors,” adding that the President should “immediately direct the SSS to end the harassment, intimidation, and attack on the rights of Nigerians.”
However, the DSS refuted the claims, describing the visit as routine.
According to the agency, the officers were merely engaging with the organisation’s leadership as part of familiarisation efforts and did not harass or assault any staff.
Dissatisfied with SERAP’s account, the operatives filed a lawsuit, arguing that the публикаtions portrayed them as acting outside the law and caused reputational harm. They also claimed the reports subjected them to embarrassment and internal disciplinary scrutiny.
Despite the legal action, SERAP has maintained its stance. In a statement issued in November 2025, its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, said the organisation stood by its account of events.
“We stand by our statements of defence and the testimonies presented before the court, which accurately reflect what occurred,” he said.
During court proceedings, witnesses reportedly testified that no physical assault took place during the DSS visit. Oluwadare told the court that the organisation’s report was based on information provided by its front-desk officer, Vivian Amadi.
At the adoption of final written addresses in February 2026, counsel to the DSS operatives urged the court to grant all reliefs sought, arguing that the claimants had been clearly identified in the публикаtions and that the alleged defamation had been established.
“The law does not require that every member of the public must know the claimants before a defamation claim can succeed,” counsel argued. “It is sufficient that those within their circle can identify them from the публикаtion.”
Presiding judge, Justice Halilu Yusuf, subsequently reserved judgment in the case, which is marked CV/4547/2024.
The ruling is expected to clarify the legal boundaries between public interest reporting and reputational protection in disputes involving state security agencies and civil society organisations.
