Court Awards N100m to DSS operatives who sued SERAP 

A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) on Tuesday found the Incorporated Trustees of Socio- Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) liable in a defamation suit filed by two operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS). The court ordered SERAP to pay the sum of N100 million as general damages to both […]

A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) on Tuesday found the Incorporated Trustees of Socio- Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) liable in a defamation suit filed by two operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS).

The court ordered SERAP to pay the sum of N100 million as general damages to both operatives, in addition to N1 million being the cost they incurred in the course of litigation.

Also, the court ordered SERAP to post a public apology to the affected operatives on its X handle, in two national newspapers and two television stations.

The court directed that SERAP pay 10% per cent interest per annum on the N100 million from the date of judgment (today) until the judgment sum is realized or liquidated.

SERAP had on September 9, 2024, issued a statement that DSS operatives “unlawfully invaded its Abuja office to harass and intimidate” its staff.

The NGO called on President Bola Tinubu to call the secret police to order and stop them from intimidating innocent Nigerians.

Both DSS officers were thereafter suspended and made to face a disciplinary panel.

But the DSS later said the panel it set up to investigate the matter exonerated the operatives.

Shortly after, the officers sued SERAP for N5.5 billion.
Delivering judgement on Tuesday, Justice Halilu Yusuf held that the claim of both DSS officers was for libel, and that SERAP did not deny publishing the offending statement which the court held “injured the reputation of the claimants in their professional capacity/standing.”
The court dismissed the two preliminary objections raised by SERAP.

The trial judge said the two operatives were able to establish that they had a dispute with SERAP.
“The contention that the 1st Claimant signed her Witness Statement on Oath in the office of her lawyer is of no moment as the Claimants did not plead that fact, and the process adopted reads ‘sworn to as the FCT High Court Registry,Abuja before the Commissioner for Oaths’ and this part of PW1’s statement on oath was not challenged by the Defendants.

“What is relevant is that the Commissioner for Oaths administered the oaths at the FCT High Court Registry. See: Katagum v. Umar and Anor (2026) LPELR 83085 (SC)

“The argument that the statement of PW1 was tendered without proof of payment for certification fails as the S.104 of the 2011 Evidence Act is clear. In the absence of any evidence showing DSS has any prescribed legal fees for certification of statements made by its officers during the course of investigation, the payment of legal fees cannot be a mandatory requirement for certification of the said statement.

“On the issue of non-service of the originating processes, the 2nd Defendant did not file a conditional appearance to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. Furthermore, he filed a motion for extension of time admitting he has been served. Also, the 2nd Defendant always had a counsel on record at all times. The argument is worrisome and is dismissed,” noted the court.