A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has awarded N100 million in damages against the Incorporated Trustees of the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) in a defamation suit filed by two operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS).
Delivering judgment on Tuesday, the court held SERAP liable for defamatory claims made against the DSS operatives and ordered the organisation to pay N100 million as general damages. The court also awarded an additional N1 million to cover litigation costs incurred by the claimants.
In addition to the monetary compensation, the court directed SERAP to issue a public apology to the affected operatives. The apology is to be published on SERAP’s X handle, as well as in two national newspapers and broadcast on two television stations.
The court further ruled that the N100 million judgment sum will attract an annual interest rate of 10 percent from the date of judgment until the amount is fully paid.
The case stems from a statement issued by SERAP on September 9, 2024, in which the organisation alleged that DSS operatives had “unlawfully invaded” its Abuja office and “harassed and intimidated” its staff. SERAP also called on President Bola Tinubu to intervene and restrain the security agency.
Following the publication, the two DSS operatives were suspended and subjected to an internal disciplinary process. However, after investigations by DSS leadership reportedly found no evidence to support the allegations, the operatives filed a N5.5 billion defamation suit against SERAP.
Delivering judgement on Tuesday, Justice Halilu Yusuf held that the claim of both DSS officers was for libel, and that SERAP did not deny publishing the offending statement which the court held “injured the reputation of the claimants in their professional capacity/standing.”
The court dismissed the two preliminary objections raised by SERAP. The trial judge said the two operatives were able to establish that they had a dispute with SERAP.
“The contention that the 1st Claimant signed her Witness Statement on Oath in the office of her lawyer is of no moment as the Claimants did not plead that fact, and the process adopted reads ‘sworn to as the FCT High Court Registry,Abuja before the Commissioner for Oaths’ and this part of PW1’s statement on oath was not challenged by the Defendants.
“What is relevant is that the Commissioner for Oaths administered the oaths at the FCT High Court Registry. See: Katagum v. Umar and Anor (2026) LPELR 83085 (SC)
“The argument that the statement of PW1 was tendered without proof of payment for certification fails as the S.104 of the 2011 Evidence Act is clear. In the absence of any evidence showing DSS has any prescribed legal fees for certification of statements made by its officers during the course of investigation, the payment of legal fees cannot be a mandatory requirement for certification of the said statement.
“On the issue of non-service of the originating processes, the 2nd Defendant did not file a conditional appearance to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. Furthermore, he filed a motion for extension of time admitting he has been served. Also, the 2nd Defendant always had a counsel on record at all times. The argument is worrisome and is dismissed,” noted the court.
A post on SERAP’s X (Twitter) handle dated September 9, 2024, read: “Officers from Nigeria’s State Security Service (SSS) 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 group added.
On the heels of SERAP’s allegations, the DSS issued a statement clarifying that the visit by its two officers, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, was routine, and aimed at familiarizing with the organisation’s new leadership. SERAP, however, stood its ground, insisting that the DSS operatives invaded its Abuja office and assaulted staff members.
After weeks of concerted efforts by the DSS to make SERAP state what the secret police called “true facts of the visit”, the DSS officers, who said they were humiliated by the allegations, and subjected to disciplinary action, filed a N5.5 billion defamation suit against SERAP.
Both operatives asserted that no invasion occurred and that the SERAP report greatly damaged their reputation.
However, on November 26, 2025, SERAP followed up with another statement, insisting that DSS officers indeed illegally invaded its Abuja office.
“We stand by our statements of defence and statements on oath filed in court by our lawyers, Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, and Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, SAN, and the correct reporting of what actually happened in court on Monday, November 24, 2025, that the DSS unlawfully invaded our Abuja office,” stressed SERAP, in a statement signed by its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare.
Throughout court proceedings, witnesses affirmed that the operatives did not physically assault any staff of SERAP. The NGO’s director, Oluwadare, later told the court that the reports of the invasion were based on information he got from one Vivian Amadi, his front-desk officer.
The two DSS officers, in the suit, accused SERAP of making false claims that they invaded their Abuja office.
While adopting the final written address of the claimants on February 19, 2026, their lawyer, Oluwagbemileke Samuel Kehinde, urged the court to grant all the reliefs sought by his clients.
He urged the court to discountenance SERAP’s address and further argued that the claimants had substantially proved their case having established that the officers were the people referred to in the alleged defamatory publication made by the defendants
Kehinde argued that, as against the argument by the defendants, every person in the society must know the claimants before they can succeed in a defamation claim.
He added that it was sufficient that the claimants’ colleagues are aware of the alleged defamatory publication and understood that it referred to the claimants (the DSS officers).
Today’s judgement is historic as this is the first time in Nigerian history that security agents would sue for defamation in their private capacity.
About The Author
