Coalition warns against threats to civic space in aftermath of SSS’ N100m judgement against SERAP
A coalition of civil society organisations has raised concerns over what it described as growing threats to judicial transparency, civic freedoms and constitutional governance in Nigeria, amid controversy surrounding a defamation judgement given against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).
A coalition of civil society organisations has raised concerns over what it described as growing threats to judicial transparency, civic freedoms and constitutional governance in Nigeria, amid controversy surrounding a defamation judgement given against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).
In a statement on Wednesday, the coalition said the circumstances surrounding the case raise broader questions about due process, access to judicial records, and the protection of constitutional rights in matters of public interest.
The groups also expressed concern over reported delays in the release of the certified true copy of the judgement, warning that such delays could undermine the right of affected parties to appeal and weaken public confidence in the judiciary.
They stressed that timely access to court judgements is central to fair hearing, transparency, and effective appellate review, particularly in cases involving significant constitutional issues.
The coalition urged judicial and public institutions to strengthen transparency in the administration of justice, uphold fair hearing guarantees under the Nigerian constitution, and protect freedom of expression.
It also warned against the increasing use of defamation suits, coercive legal measures, and institutional pressure in cases involving anti-corruption advocacy and public accountability work.
“We are equally concerned by the apparent delay in the release of the Certified True Copy of the judgement. Timely access to judgements is central to the administration of justice. Without access to the judgment, litigants may be unable to properly evaluate their legal position, pursue informed appellate review, or respond responsibly in the public domain.
“The Supreme Court of Nigeria has repeatedly affirmed that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done, and that fair hearing constitutes the bedrock of constitutional adjudication in Nigeria. These principles remain central to the legitimacy of judicial authority and the protection of democratic governance.
“In addition, Nigerian courts have consistently recognised the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights as an enforceable part of domestic law, reinforcing protections for freedom of expression, civic participation, and access to justice.
“We also urge caution against the increasing use of defamation litigation, coercive legal measures, and institutional intimidation in contexts involving anti-corruption advocacy, public accountability work, and civic engagement.
Democratic societies depend on the ability of civil society organisations to question authority, scrutinise public institutions, and engage in robust public-interest advocacy without fear of disproportionate retaliation.
“The constitutional right of appeal remains an integral part of the justice system. Seeking appellate review of a judgment cannot reasonably be construed as contempt for the judiciary or disobedience to the rule of law. To suggest otherwise risks weakening constitutional safeguards and discouraging legitimate legal recourse,” they added.
The coalition further listed its demands, including the immediate release of the Certified True Copy of the judgment, stronger respect for fair hearing and freedom of expression, and greater institutional restraint in public commentary on ongoing judicial matters where official records are not yet available.
It also called for stronger protection of civic space and public-interest advocacy, and renewed commitment by Nigerian institutions to constitutionalism, democratic accountability and human rights standards.
The statement was signed by 52 organisations, including Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, Amnesty International Nigeria, BudgIt Foundation, Yiaga Africa, among others.
The development follows a series of legal and public reactions to a N100 million defamation judgement delivered on 5 May by the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court in Abuja against SERAP in favour of two officials of the SSS, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele.
The judge Yusuf Halilu also ordered SERAP to issue public apologies, pay N1 million in costs, and attract a 10 per cent annual post-judgement interest until the damages are fully paid.
SERAP has since rejected the ruling, describing it as “a travesty” and “a dangerous precedent” for civic freedom, and has filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal in Abuja seeking to set aside the judgement.
In a statement, SERAP said it would challenge the decision, describing it as “a travesty” and “a dangerous precedent” for civic freedom in Nigeria.
The organisation also stated that senior lawyers Tayo Oyetibo, and Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, who are both Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), had been instructed to file an appeal.
SERAP further described the case as “a textbook example of judicial harassment and a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP),” alleging that the action reflected a broader pattern of using defamation laws and state institutions to suppress dissent and weaken civic space.
According to the organisation, its September 2024 publication about alleged conduct of the SSS followed what it described as an unlawful invasion and intimidation of its Abuja office after it had called for investigations into alleged corruption in the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) and fuel price increases.
In its defence, SERAP argued that SSS officials who visited its office interrogated staff, demanded incorporation documents, and sought information about the organisation’s leadership and activities, while also alleging that unmarked vehicles were stationed outside its premises during the encounter.
SERAP also contended that the allegedly defamatory publication did not identify the SSS officials personally and therefore could not sustain a claim for personal defamation.
The organisation maintains that its statements were made in the public interest and are protected under constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and international human rights obligations.
