ABUJA—On Thursday, a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Maitama reserved judgment in a N5 billion defamation lawsuit brought against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) by two Department of State Services (DSS) personnel.
Shortly after the parties accepted their final argument briefs, Justice Yusuf Halilu said that the date of the ruling would be announced.
On December 3, 2024, the agents, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, filed a Writ of Summons, claiming that SERAP had made up a claim that they had broken into its Abuja headquarters on September 9, 2024.
The claimants claimed that the DSS’s business image and their own reputations were harmed by the misleading allegation.
In the lawsuit designated CV/4547/2024, advertisements by SERP and its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, were listed as the first and second defendants, respectively.
After calling two witnesses, the claimants requested an order “directing the defendants to tender an apology to the claimants via the first defendant’s (SERAP’s) website, X (formerly Twitter) handle, two national daily newspapers (Punch and Vanguard), and two national news television stations (Arise Television and Channels Television) for falsely accusing the claimants of unlawfully invading the first defendant’s office and interrogating the first defendant’s staff.”
Additionally, they requested “an order directing the defendants to pay the claimants N5 billion in damages for the libellous statements of the claimants, as well as interest on the sum of N5 billion at the rate of 10 percent per annum from the date of judgment until the judgment sum is realized or liquidated.”
The claimants also asked the court to order the defendants to reimburse them N50 million for the litigation’s expenses.
They insisted that, in contrast to SERAP’s “false allegation,” they had just been to the organization’s office to “familiarize” themselves with the new leadership.
When the DSS agents arrived, a staff member named Ruth gave them with a visitor’s register, which they signed.
They said in court that when word leaked out that they had broken into SERAP’s office, they were still there.
The agents reported that when SERAP mentioned them in its article as “a tall, large, dark-skinned woman” and “a slim, dark-skinned man,” their coworkers immediately recognized them.
In the meantime, the defendants argued that the complaint lacked merit and contested its competence through their legal team, which was led by Mr. Tayo Oyetibo, SAN.
The defendants contended that invitations are always made formally in writing and that the State Security Service (SSS), the legally mandated agency, does not engage in unannounced social or familiarization trips with NGOs.
Additionally, they informed the court that, in contrast to what the lawsuit claimed, SERAP did not have any new leadership or a Ruth-named front desk officer.
The defendants claim that the two agents showed up in unmarked cars without warning.
In order to hide her identity, the first claimant signed the register as “Sarah David,” according to SERAP. Vivian Amadi, the front desk officer, was then questioned and asked to produce private documents, such as the company’s certificate of formation.
The defendants further stated that until SERAP tweeted a request for the President “to stop the harassment and unlawful occupation,” the plaintiffs would not leave.
Mr. Oluwagmileke Kehinde, the claimants’ attorney, begged for the court to support his clients’ case and provide all reliefs during Thursday’s sessions.
However, Ms. Victoria Bassey, who took over the defendants’ written address, asked the court to dismiss the entire lawsuit.
The defense attorney contended that the claimants had not proven defamation and that the lawsuit was misconceived.
It is a well-established legal principle that the burden of proof in a defamation suit is on the claimant to demonstrate that the remarks complained of were published about and about him personally. Since it goes right to the heart of the cause of action, this requirement is not merely cosmetic; failing to prove it can have deadly consequences.
The plaintiffs were not identified by name, rank, photo, or office in any of the publications that were the subject of the complaints. The defendant’s attorney went on to say that they made general references to “officers from Nigeria’s Department of State Services (DSS)” and expressed dissatisfaction with the DSS’s institutional behavior.
According to Justice Halilu, the parties will be informed of the judgment date.
