Breaking News: Court Orders SERAP to Pay $100 Million in Damages to DSS Officials for Defamation

The Federal Capital Territory High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on Tuesday, ordered the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) to pay N100 million in damages to two officials of the Department of State Services (DSS) over a defamatory publication on X.

Justice Yusuf Halilu, who delivered the ruling in the case marked FCT/HC/CV/4547/24, found that the appellants, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, successfully demonstrated that SERAP’s post was defamatory.

The development came against the backdrop of a series of posts published on SERAP’s handle

Dissatisfied with the publication, the two DSS officials sued SERAP and its deputy director, Kolawole Oluwadare, seeking $5 billion in damages, legal fees and a public apology across multiple platforms.

Justice Halilu, in his ruling, said that while SERAP plays a key role in promoting transparency and accountability, it must exercise caution and due diligence before publishing allegations against individuals or institutions.

“It is extremely necessary for SERAP to take care and due diligence before tweeting or releasing any particular information,” the judge said.

He added that the right to free expression must be balanced with the rights of others.

The court found that the publication, which went viral, caused mental and psychological distress to the applicants and contributed to their suspension from service pending investigations.

Judge Halilu found that the defendants had failed to justify the claims or withdraw the publication, describing it as “unjustifiably defamatory”. Although the plaintiffs sought $5 billion, the court awarded $100 million in damages, plus $1 million in costs of the action and 10% annual interest on the judgment sum until paid in full.

The court also ordered SERAP to issue a public apology to the plaintiffs on its website, X handle, and across national media platforms, including The PUNCH, Vanguard, Arise Television and Channels Television.

The judge also reiterated that fundamental rights are not absolute, stating: “your right ends where another’s begins.”

While stating that defamation is actionable once publication has been established, even without proof of specific damages, the court limited itself to rejecting all the preliminary objections raised by the defendants, declaring the jurisdiction of the case and the admissibility of the evidence.