A court has ordered the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) to pay N100 million in damages to operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS) over a defamation suit arising from allegations made against the security agency.
The ruling followed a legal action filed by DSS personnel who challenged statements attributed to SERAP, which they argued were false, damaging, and capable of lowering their reputation in the eyes of the public. The plaintiffs maintained that the publication portrayed them as acting unlawfully and abusing their powers without substantiated evidence.
In its judgment, the court held that the claims made by SERAP were defamatory and not sufficiently backed by verifiable facts. The court emphasized that while civil society organizations play a crucial role in promoting accountability and human rights, such advocacy must be grounded in accurate and provable information.
The judge consequently awarded N100 million as general damages in favour of the DSS operatives, noting that the statements had caused reputational harm and could undermine public confidence in the institution. The court also directed SERAP to issue a public retraction of the statements and publish an apology in widely circulated media platforms.
Legal representatives of the DSS welcomed the judgment, describing it as a reaffirmation that no individual or organization is above the law when it comes to making potentially harmful claims. They argued that the decision would serve as a deterrent against the spread of unverified allegations against security agencies.
On the other hand, reactions from civil society circles have been mixed. Some activists expressed concern that the ruling could have a chilling effect on advocacy and public interest litigation, particularly in cases involving powerful state institutions. Others stressed the need for organizations to exercise greater diligence in verifying information before making public statements.
As of the time of filing this report, SERAP had not issued an official response indicating whether it would comply fully with the court’s directives or pursue an appeal. Legal analysts note that the case may set an important precedent regarding the balance between freedom of expression and protection of reputation in Nigeria’s judicial landscape.