By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

ABUJA—A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting at Maitama, on Thursday reserved judgment on a N5 billion defamation suit filed by two officials of the Department of State Services (DSS) against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).

Justice Yusuf Halilu announced that the judgment date would be communicated shortly after the parties adopted their final briefs of argument.

The operatives, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, had filed a Writ of Summons on December 3, 2024, alleging that SERAP falsely claimed they invaded its Abuja office on September 9, 2024.

The claimants said the false claim damaged their reputations and the DSS’s corporate image.

SERAP and its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, were named as 1st and 2nd defendants in the suit marked CV/4547/2024.

The claimants, who called two witnesses, prayed the court for an order “directing the defendants to tender an apology to the claimants via the first defendant’s (SERAP’s) website, X (formerly Twitter) handle, two national daily newspapers (Punch and Vanguard), and two national news television stations (Arise Television and Channels Television) for falsely accusing the claimants of unlawfully invading the first defendant’s office and interrogating the first defendant’s staff.”

They also sought “an order directing the defendants to pay the claimants the sum of N5bn as damages for the libellous statements published about the claimants, as well as interest on the sum of N5bn at the rate of 10 percent per annum from the date of judgment until the judgment sum is realised or liquidated.”

It was further the prayer of the claimants for the court to direct the defendants to pay them the sum of N50 million as costs of the litigation.

They maintained that contrary to SERAP’s “false allegation,” they had only visited its office for “familiarization” purposes with the organization’s new leadership.

The DSS operatives said they signed a visitor’s register presented by a staff member named Ruth upon arrival.

They told the court that they were still at SERAP’s office when news broke that they had invaded the premises.

The operatives noted that their colleagues quickly identified them after SERAP referenced them in its publication as “a tall, large, dark-skinned woman” and “a slim, dark-skinned man.”

Meanwhile, the defendants, through their team of lawyers led by Mr. Tayo Oyetibo, SAN, challenged the suit’s competence and urged the court to dismiss it for lack of merit.

The defendants argued that the State Security Service (SSS)—the agency established by law—has no practice of unannounced social or familiarization visits with NGOs, and that invitations are always sent formally in writing.

They also told the court that, contrary to the suit’s claim, there was no new leadership at SERAP and no front desk officer named Ruth.

According to the defendants, the two operatives arrived unannounced in unmarked vehicles.

SERAP said the 1st claimant signed the register as “Sarah David” to conceal her identity, and that its front desk officer, Vivian Amadi, was subsequently interrogated and ordered to provide sensitive documents, including the organization’s certificate of incorporation.

The defendants added that the claimants refused to leave until SERAP tweeted urging the President “to stop the harassment and unlawful occupation.”

At Thursday’s proceedings, counsel for the claimants, Mr. Oluwagmileke Kehinde, prayed the court to uphold his clients’ case and grant all reliefs.

On the other hand, Ms. Victoria Bassey, who adopted the written address for the defendants, prayed the court to dismiss the suit in its entirety.

The defence lawyer argued that the suit was misconceived and that the claimants failed to establish defamation.

“The law is firmly settled that in an action for defamation, the burden lies squarely on the claimant to prove, as a threshold and indispensable requirement, that the words complained of were published of and concerning him personally. This requirement is not cosmetic, as it goes to the very root of the cause of action, and failure to establish it is fatal.”

“It is common ground that none of the publications complained of mentioned the claimants by name, rank, photograph, or office. They referred generically to ‘officers from Nigeria’s Department of State Services (DSS)’ and complained of the conduct of the DSS as an institution,” the defendant’s lawyer further argued.

Justice Halilu said the judgment date would be communicated to the parties.

Source; Vanguard News