The Court of Appeal in Abuja has rejected attempts by United Nations Special Rapporteurs and Columbia University to participate in the legal battle between the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and the Department of State Services (DSS), ruling that they were not invited by the court.
The court declined to admit the amicus curiae briefs submitted by the international experts and the university. Following the withdrawal of the application, it was struck out.
The development came on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, as the appellate court considered SERAP’s challenge to a Federal Capital Territory High Court judgment ordering the organisation to pay ₦100 million in damages in a defamation suit instituted by two DSS officers.
The Court of Appeal has reserved judgment in the appeal, leaving the fate of the damages award and other consequential orders to be determined when its decision is delivered.
SERAP is asking the appellate court to overturn the judgment delivered on May 5, 2026, by Justice Yusuf Halilu, which found the organisation liable for defamation and awarded ₦100 million against it.
The organisation is also challenging other orders made by the lower court, including the directive compelling it to publish an apology.
In its Appellant’s Brief of Argument, dated September 3, 2026, and filed through its counsel, Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, SERAP presented 24 grounds of appeal, raising questions about the legal and evidential basis of the judgment.
At the heart of the appeal is whether the two DSS officers established, through credible evidence, that the publications complained of referred specifically to them.
SERAP maintains that the publications did not identify the officers by name and argues that the general physical descriptions contained in the reports were insufficient, without additional supporting evidence, to establish that the officers were the individuals being referred to.
The organisation is also challenging the competence of the evidence relied upon by the trial court and the interpretation of the essential elements of defamation.
Aside the immediate dispute, SERAP argues that the appeal raises broader questions about freedom of expression and the right to engage in public-interest advocacy, particularly when addressing allegations of corruption and government policies.
The defamation suit stemmed from a publication by SERAP on September 9, 2024, concerning an alleged invasion of its Abuja office by DSS officers.
The publication followed SERAP’s call on President Bola Tinubu to investigate allegations of corruption at the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) and reverse increases in fuel prices.
The two DSS officers subsequently instituted the defamation action, which culminated in the ₦100 million damages award by the FCT High Court.
SERAP’s appeal seeks to establish whether the trial court correctly applied the principles of defamation law in determining that the organisation’s publication referred to the officers and justified the award of damages.
With judgment now reserved, the Court of Appeal’s eventual decision will determine whether the lower court’s ruling stands or is set aside.
The outcome could also have wider implications for the legal boundaries between protecting individual reputations and safeguarding freedom of expression in reporting and advocacy on matters of public interest.
This is exactly what I was looking for