- Agency Report
Justice Yusuf Halilu of an Abuja high Court on Thursday reserved judgment in a N5.5 billion suit instituted by two operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS).
Two DSS officials, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogunleye, had dragged the Incorporated Trustees of the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and Kolawale Oluwadare
The operatives accused the defendants of making false claim that John and Ogunleye invaded SERAP’s Abuja office.
SERAP insisted that its publications were factual, lawful, and directed at the institution, not any individual officers.
They stated, among others, that the alleged false claim by SERAP had negatively impacted on DSS’ reputation and those of the two officials involved.
They, therefore, sought an order of the court directing the defendants to tender an apology to them via SERAP’s website, X (formerly Twitter) handle, two national daily newspapers.
Also, to two national news television stations for falsely accusing them of unlawfully invading SERAP office and interrogating its staff.
They further sought an order directing the defendants to pay them the sum of N5billion as damages for the libellous statements published about them as well as interest on the sum of N5billion at the rate of 10 percent per annum from the date of judgment until the judgment sum is realised or liquidated.
In addition, an order directing the defendants to pay the claimants the sum of N50million as costs of the action.
At the resumed hearing in the suit, marked CV/4547/2024, parties adopted their final written addresses.
SERAP, through its counsel, Victoria Bassey, urged the court to dismiss the suit.
She asserts that the statements published on September 9, 2024, via its verified X (formerly Twitter) handle and official website accurately reported events at its Abuja office.
She added and raised legitimate concerns about official conduct, consistent with public interest and freedom of expression.
In its final written address, SERAP maintained that the publications did not name the claimants and could not reasonably be construed as referring to them personally.
The organisation argued that the descriptions complained of by the claimants were general.
It added and not sufficient enough to identify any specific DSS officers, and that no right-thinking person would interpret the statements as targeting the claimants.
SERAP further submitted that its use of expressions such as “invasion,” “intimidation,” and “harassment” reflected its honest assessment of events as they unfolded at its premises.
According to SERAP, the statements were made without malice and in defence of civic space, accountability, and public interest.
On the allegation of reputational damage by the claimants, SERAP contended that any internal actions taken by the Service against them could not be attributed to its (SERAP’s) publications.
It argued that the claimants failed to establish a direct causal link between the reports and any alleged suspension or investigation.
The CSO also challenged the claimants’ reliance on identification by description, insisting that defamation law requires a clear nexus between the words complained of and the individuals alleging harm, an element it said the claimants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities.
SERAP urged the court to uphold the defences of truth, fair comment, and public interest, and to reject what it described as “an attempt to stifle legitimate advocacy through defamation claims”.
On their part, the claimants urged the court to hold SERAP liable for libel arising from its September, 2024 publications.
The claimants alleged that SERAP published false and malicious statements accusing DSS officers of unlawfully “invading” its Abuja office and engaging in intimidation and harassment.
They argued that their visit to SERAP’s Abuja office on September 9, 2024 was a lawful familiarisation meeting conducted on official instructions.
The claimants added, during which they identified themselves, signed the visitors’ register, and interacted politely with SERAP’s front desk officer.
According to them, SERAP’s publications, circulated on social media and its website, were crafted to portray them as rogue operatives.
Also, as abusing power and included physical descriptions that unmistakably referred to them, despite not mentioning their names.
They further argued that the publications were widely circulated within the DSS, leading to reputational damage, investigations, and suspension from duty.
The rejected SERAP’s submission that its statements were institutional and true, the claimants argued that evidence at trial had “demolished” these.
They then urged the court to find that all elements of libel were proved on a balance of probabilities and to grant the declaratory, injunctive, and monetary reliefs sought.
After listening to their submissions, Justice Halilu then reserved judgment to a date to be communicated to parties later. NAN