Just In: Court reserves judgment in DSS' Staff N5.5b defamation suit against SERAP

A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), sitting in Maitama, Abuja, has reserved judgment till a date to be communicated to parties, in a N5.5billion defamation suit by two operatives of the Department of State Services (DDS) against a group, the Socio-economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).

Justice Halilu Yusuf made the announcement on Thursday after lawyers to parties adopted their final written addresses, and made their final submissions in the suit filed by the two officers, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele.

Listed with SERAP as defendants in the suit, marked: CV/4547/2024, is its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare.

The claimants, in the suit, accused SERAP of making false claims that John and Ogundele invaded their Abuja office on September 9, 2024.

While adopting the final written address of the claimant on Thursday, their lawyer, Oluwagbemileke Kehinde, urged the court to grant all the reliefs sought by his clients.

Kehinde faulted the competence of the 12-page reply address filed for the second defendant, arguing that it violated Order 39 Rule 2 of the court's Rules, which provides that reply address should not exceed 10 pages.

He urged the court to discountenance the address and further argued that the claimants have substantially proved their case having established that the officers were the people referred to in the alleged defamatory publication made by the defendants

Kehinde argued that, as against the argument by the defendants, every person in the society must know the claimants before they can succeed in a defamation claim.

He said it is sufficient that the claimants' colleague are aware of the alleged defamatory publication and understood that it referred to the claimants.

Kehinde added: "All the ingredients of defamation have been priced, it referred to the claimants and there is no denial that there was a publication."

Earlier, lawyer to SERAP, Victoria Bassey adopted her client's final address and address on reply on point of law after the court granted her request to deem the addresses deemed properly filed, having been filed out of time.

Bassey urged the court to dismiss the suit and argued that since the claimants were not specifically named in the publication complained about, they must prove that they were the people referred to in the publication before they could succeed in a defamation suit.

She argued that the claimants failed to establish that the were the subjects of the publication complained about.

Lawyer to Oluwadare (2nd defendant), Oluwatosin Adesioye made similar arguments as Bassey and urged the court to dismiss the suit.

Adesioye said his clients queried the court's jurisdiction in the final written address on the grounds that not only did the claimants fail to establish that they were the people referred to in the publication, they also did not show that the DSS is known to law.

He argued that what is known in the National Security Agencies Act, it is only the State Security Service that is known, not the DSS.

He also faulted the competence of the claimants' final written address, which he claimed exceeded the stipulated 30 pages by five pages.

While testifying for the defence on November 24, 2025, Oluwadare admitted that he made the publication complained about based on the information he got from one Vivian Amadi, a front desk officer and receptionist in SERAP's Abuja office.

The witness admitted that he was not present in the office, but was called by the Vivian Amadi to inform him of the presence of the DSS officials in the SERAP's premises.

Oluwadare was handed two documents, including the publication complained about by the claimants, and was asked to read out the first paragraph to the hearing of everyone in court, which he did.

In the publication posted on SERAP's website, the witness raised an alarm, claiming that the DSS had invaded SERAP's Abuja office unlawfully; intimidating and harassing its staff, and called on President Bola Tinubu to call the DSS officuials to order.

After reading, the witness admitted using the words - unlawful, intimidating, harassing - in the publications, but disagreed that the words used in the publications are serious allegations against the two claimants.

The witness also admitted not consulting with the DSS before making the publications, adding that while they were in SERAP's office, the two DSS officials did not brandish any weapon.

He also confirmed that throughout their presence of the two DSS officials did not seize or or damage any property nor was any staff of SERAP physically assaulted by the security agents.

Oluwadare admitted that the DSS officials did not break any door to gain entry into their office.

He said he was told that the first claimant (Sarah John) was making calls and asking other officials of the DSS not to come inside SERAP office.

The witness claimed to have the CCTV footage of the DSS officials' entrance into SERAP's office.

The claimants are, in the suit, stated among others, that the alleged false claim by SERAP has negatively impacted on its reputation and that of the two officials involved.

They also stated, in their statement of claim, that, in line with its practice of engaging with officials of non governmental organisations operating in the FCT to establish a relationship with their new leadership, it directed the two officials - John and Ogunleye - to visit SERAP's office and invite its new leadership for a familiarisation meeting.

The claimants added that in carrying out the directive, John and Ogunleye paid a friendly visit to SERAP's office at 18 Bamako Street, Wuse Zone 1, Abuja on September 9 and met with one Ruth, who upon being informed about the purpose of the visit, claimed that none of SERAP's management staff was in the country and advised that a formal letter of invitation be written by the DSS.

John and Ogundele, who claimed that their interactions with Ruth were recorded, said before they immediately exited SERAP's office, Ruth promised to inform her organisation's management about the visit and volunteered a phone number - 08160537202.

They said it was surprising that, shortly after their visit, SERAP posted on its X (Twitter) handle: @SERAPNigeria, that officers of the DSS are presently unlawfully occupying its office.

The claimant added that "on the same day, the defendants also published a statement on SERAP's website, which was widely reported by several media outfits, falsely alleging that some officers from the DSS, described as "a fall, large, dark-skinned woman" and "a slim, dark skinned man," invaded their Abuja office and interrogated the staff of the first defendant (SERAP).

John and Ogundele stated that "due to the false statements published by the defendants, the DSS has been ridiculed and criticised by international agencies such as the Amnesty International and prominent members of the Nigerian society, such as Femi Falana (SAN).

"Due to the false statements published by the defendants, members of the public and the international community formed the opinion that the Federal Government is using the DSS to harass the defendants."

They added that the defendants’ statements caused harm to the claimants’ reputation because the staff and management of the DSS have formed the opinion that the claimants did not follow orders and carried out an unsanctioned operation and are therefore, incompetent and unprofessional.

The claimants are therefore praying the court for the following reliefs:

*An order directing the defendants to tender an apology to the claimants via the first defendant's (SERAP's) website, X (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.

*An order directing the defendants to pay the claimants the sum of N5billion as damages for the libellous statements published about the claimants.

*Interest on the sum of N5b at the rate of 10 percent per annum from the date of judgment until the judgment sum is realised or liquidated.

*AN order directing the defendants to pay the claimants the sum of N50million as costs of this action.