High court sets date for adoption of final addresses
A pivotal legal battle between the Nigerian government’s primary security agency and a leading civil society group is nearing its conclusion. The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) has scheduled February 19, 2026, for the adoption of the final written addresses in the N5 billion defamation suit filed by two officials of the Department of State Services (DSS) against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP). The development marks the final stage of the trial process, preceding the court’s judgment on the highly contentious case.
The matter, which centers on allegations of character assassination and reputational damage, was set for the final address stage after the second defendant, Mr. Kolawole Oluwadare, the Deputy Director of SERAP, successfully closed his defence on Monday. The suit, designated CV/4547/2024, underscores the growing tension between state security apparatuses and human rights advocacy groups operating within the country’s civic space.
The core of the defamation claim
The claimants in the suit, DSS operatives identified as Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, instituted the action against SERAP, alleging that the organization published false claims regarding an purported invasion of its Abuja office. According to the litigants, SERAP’s public statement that the DSS operatives had unlawfully stormed its office and interrogated staff was untrue and highly damaging. The operatives contend that the said false claim not only tarnished their individual reputations but also negatively impacted the corporate image and integrity of the DSS as an institution.
The gravity of the alleged libel is reflected in the substantial prayers sought by the DSS officials. The claimants are demanding N5 billion in damages for the libellous statements published by SERAP. Additionally, they are seeking an order directing the human rights organization to publish a public apology on its official website, its social media platform (specifically its X handle/Twitter), two prominent national daily newspapers, and two national news television stations (Arise Television and Channels Television). The claimants are also seeking an annual interest rate of 10 percent on the N5 billion sum from the date of judgment until the amount is fully liquidated, alongside N50 million to cover the cost of the legal action.
SERAP’s defense and perspective
During his testimony before the court, Kolawole Oluwadare, the Deputy Director of SERAP, adopted his statement on oath and provided a comprehensive clarification of the organization’s mandate and the events surrounding the alleged intrusion. He affirmed that SERAP is a registered non-governmental organization dedicated to promoting transparency, accountability, and social justice in Nigeria, often supported by local and international donors.
Oluwadare refuted suggestions that SERAP’s purpose is merely to criticize the government, insisting that its core function is to promote and protect human rights, including socio-economic rights, in the public interest. While cross-examined, the witness acknowledged that there was no physical assault on staff members nor were any doors broken during the incident. However, he maintained that the sudden presence of DSS operatives who stormed the office, coupled with the use of unmarked vehicles, necessitated the issuance of a public alert via the organization’s X (Twitter) handle.
The Deputy Director further informed the court that the organization possesses CCTV footage of the incident, which they believe substantiates the seriousness of the encounter observed by their employees, including a lawyer, a front-desk officer, and a security guard. He stressed that the perceived harassment and intimidation of civic actors, such as those at SERAP, pose a grave threat to the organization’s work and fundamentally hamper its efforts to hold public institutions accountable to good governance standards.
Implications for civic freedom
The conclusion of the trial phase and the scheduling of the final addresses bring this high-stakes case to a defining point. This legal contest has been closely monitored by human rights defenders and civil liberty organizations across the country. The outcome is widely viewed as a potential benchmark for determining the acceptable limits of advocacy and government critique by civil society groups in Nigeria.
The substantial monetary damages sought by the DSS officials raise questions about the potential chilling effect on the operations of non-governmental organizations if a negative verdict is delivered. Human rights bodies, including SERAP, have consistently advocated for an environment where they can operate without fear of intimidation or official reprisal, arguing that their work is vital for sustaining democracy and promoting institutional accountability. The court’s judgment is therefore highly anticipated, as it will inevitably influence the relationship dynamic between security agencies and civic watchdogs for the foreseeable future.
