The SERAP defamation judgment has drawn international attention after the Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) expressed concern over a Federal Capital Territory High Court ruling that awarded N100 million in damages and N1 million in legal costs against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) in a civil defamation case instituted by officials of the Department of State Services (DSS).
In a statement, IHRDA said it was closely monitoring the matter, warning that judgments capable of discouraging public-interest advocacy could have wider implications for civic participation, freedom of expression and accountability across Nigeria and the African continent.
The case stems from events of September 9, 2024, when SERAP issued a public statement alleging that two DSS officials visited its Abuja office in what the organisation described as an act of invasion, intimidation and harassment. A day later, the DSS publicly rejected SERAP’s account, describing the allegations as inaccurate and misleading.
Following the exchange, the two DSS officials filed a civil defamation suit against SERAP, seeking N5 billion in damages over claims they argued had harmed their character and professional reputation. The case culminated in a judgment delivered on May 5, 2026, with the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory awarding N100 million in damages and an additional N1 million as legal costs against SERAP. The organisation has since appealed the decision.
While acknowledging that individuals and institutions have a legitimate right to protect their reputations, IHRDA said courts must also consider the broader human rights implications of legal actions involving organisations engaged in public-interest work. According to the institute, decisions that impose significant financial penalties on civil society organisations may discourage legitimate advocacy, transparency campaigns and accountability initiatives.
IHRDA noted that the case comes against the backdrop of what it described as a documented pattern of intimidation directed at non-governmental organisations and human rights defenders by the DSS in Nigeria. The institute argued that, viewed within that broader context, the legal proceedings exhibit characteristics commonly associated with Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), which are legal actions used to discourage criticism, scrutiny or participation in matters of public interest through the burden of costly litigation.
The organisation maintained that courts have a responsibility to identify such cases and carefully assess whether legal proceedings could have a censoring effect on legitimate public-interest activities undertaken by recognised civil society organisations.
IHRDA also linked the SERAP defamation judgment to what it described as a growing trend of shrinking civic space across Africa. According to the institute, civil society organisations, journalists, anti-corruption advocates and human rights defenders increasingly face legal and administrative pressure in response to their work. It warned that legal measures capable of discouraging accountability efforts could weaken transparency, democratic participation and freedom of expression.
The institute recalled that freedom of expression is protected under Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, alongside other international and regional human rights instruments to which Nigeria is a party. It further cited standards developed by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), which encourage member states to ensure that defamation laws protect legitimate expression, permit constructive criticism of public officials and avoid imposing disproportionate sanctions capable of discouraging public-interest advocacy.
As SERAP’s appeal progresses, IHRDA urged Nigerian courts to strike an appropriate balance between protecting individual reputations and safeguarding constitutional freedoms.
The institute stressed that civil society organisations and other public-interest actors must remain free to scrutinise public institutions, raise concerns and contribute to democratic accountability without facing disproportionate legal consequences. IHRDA added that it will continue monitoring developments in the appeal while supporting efforts to protect civic space and promote legal frameworks that align with regional and international human rights standards.
