The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in Maitama, Abuja, has reserved judgment in a high-profile defamation suit brought by two Department of State Services (DSS) operatives against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare.
The court will communicate the date for the judgment to the parties at a later time.
The suit, listed as CV/4547/2024, was filed by DSS officers Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele.
The claimants allege that SERAP made false and damaging claims that they unlawfully invaded its Abuja office on September 9, 2024.
The publication, which was circulated both on SERAP’s website and its X (Twitter) handle (@SERAPNigeria), described the DSS officers in derogatory terms, claiming they interrogated SERAP staff and occupied its premises illegally.
During Thursday’s proceedings, Justice Halilu Yusuf announced that judgment had been reserved after both parties adopted their final written addresses and completed oral submissions.
Counsel to the claimants, Oluwagbemileke Kehinde, urged the court to grant all reliefs sought by his clients, insisting that the case clearly constituted a defamation against the DSS officers.
He challenged the competence of the 12-page reply address filed on behalf of the second defendant, Oluwadare, arguing that it violated Order 39 Rule 2 of the court’s rules, which stipulates that a reply address should not exceed 10 pages.
He urged the court to discountenance the address and consider the claimants’ submissions as substantially proving their case.
Kehinde further argued that, contrary to the defendants’ claims, a plaintiff in a defamation suit does not need to be universally recognized by society at large to succeed.
It is sufficient that relevant colleagues or associates understand that the publication refers to the claimants.
“All the ingredients of defamation have been met,” Kehinde said, “the publication referred to the claimants, and there is no denial that there was a publication.”
Representing SERAP, Victoria Bassey adopted her client’s final address and reply on points of law after the court allowed them to be deemed properly filed despite being submitted late.
Bassey urged the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that the claimants had not specifically been named in the publication, and therefore could not claim they were victims of defamation.
Similarly, Oluwatosin Adesioye, counsel for Oluwadare, echoed these arguments.
He questioned the jurisdiction of the court, noting that the DSS is not formally recognized under the National Security Agencies Act; only the State Security Service (SSS) is.
Adesioye also contested the length of the claimants’ final written address, arguing it exceeded the court’s 30-page limit.
During defence testimony on November 24, 2025, Oluwadare admitted that he had authored the publication complained about.
He claimed that his information came from Vivian Amadi, a front desk officer at SERAP’s Abuja office.
Oluwadare stated that he was not physically present during the visit of the DSS officials but was informed by Amadi about their presence.
He read the first paragraph of the publication in court, which alleged that DSS officers unlawfully entered SERAP’s office, intimidated staff, and harassed personnel, urging President Bola Tinubu to intervene.
While acknowledging that he had used words such as “unlawful,” “intimidating,” and “harassing,” he denied that these amounted to serious allegations against the claimants.
Oluwadare confirmed in court that the DSS officers did not brandish weapons, seize or damage property, or physically assault any SERAP staff.
He added that no doors were broken during the entry. According to his testimony, Sarah John made calls asking other DSS personnel not to enter SERAP’s premises.
He also stated that CCTV footage existed to record the entry of the DSS officials into the office.
The claimants’ statement of claim explains that their visit to SERAP’s office at 18 Bamako Street, Wuse Zone 1, Abuja, was in line with official DSS directives.
Their task was to engage with non-governmental organisations and establish a relationship with the new leadership.
During the visit, they met a staff member, Ruth, who informed them that management was unavailable and suggested that a formal letter of invitation be submitted.
Ruth also provided her phone number and promised to relay information to SERAP’s management.
Shortly after this visit, SERAP published on its X (Twitter) handle that DSS officers were unlawfully occupying its office.
A statement on SERAP’s website further alleged that a “tall, large, dark-skinned woman” and a “slim, dark-skinned man” from the DSS invaded the office and interrogated staff.
The claimants maintain that the publications have caused serious damage to their professional reputation.
They argue that the false statements led to public ridicule of the DSS, attracting criticism from international agencies such as Amnesty International, as well as prominent Nigerian figures including Femi Falana (SAN).
According to the claimants, the defamatory statements conveyed to the public and international community the impression that the Federal Government was using the DSS to harass SERAP.
They further argued that the publications painted them as unprofessional, incompetent, and disobedient to official orders.
The claimants are seeking multiple remedies. First, they requested an order directing the defendants to issue apologies through SERAP’s website, X (Twitter) handle, two national newspapers—Punch and Vanguard—and two national television stations—Arise Television and Channels Television—for falsely accusing them of unlawful entry and interrogation.
Second, they are seeking N5 billion in damages for the libellous publications. Third, they requested interest on the damages at a rate of 10% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment. Lastly, the claimants are seeking N50 million as legal costs.
The outcome of this case is being closely watched, not only for its implications on the operations of security agencies in Nigeria but also for how defamation law is interpreted, especially regarding statements made by non-governmental organisations against public officials.
Legal experts suggest that the judgment could set a significant precedent for future cases involving media statements, reputational damage, and accountability of both civil society organisations and security operatives.
The proceedings also highlighted the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the protection of professional reputations.
While SERAP maintained that its publication was a form of advocacy and public alert, the claimants argue that the content was false and damaging.
This case therefore sits at the intersection of law, media, and national security, drawing attention from legal analysts, civil society groups, and government officials alike.
As the court awaits the reserved judgment, both parties have completed their submissions, leaving the High Court with the task of weighing evidence, legal precedents, and statutory interpretations.
Observers anticipate that the ruling could influence future interactions between government agencies and advocacy organisations, particularly regarding the accuracy of public statements and accountability for potentially harmful publications.
Ireport247news
About The Author
