Judge okays start of ₦5bn defamation suit by DSS against SERAP

A judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Yusuf Halilu, on Wednesday fixed March 21, 2025 to begin definite hearing on a case of defamation filed by two officers of the Department of State Services (DSS) against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).

The DSS officers had last October filed a defamation suit against SERAP after the organization failed to apologize for accusing the DSS officials of unlawfully invading its Abuja office a month earlier.

Among the reliefs sought by the DSS officers are ₦5billion in damages, apology published on SERAP’s website, social media, and in national newspapers and TV stations. In addition, was ₦50 million for legal costs and 10 percent annual interest on the N5 billion until payment is made in full.

When the matter came up for a definitive hearing on Wednesday, March 12, 2025, SERAP’s legal team raised several interlocutory applications and objections.

The objections centred on the court’s jurisdiction, that they were not properly served, and that the DSS officials lacked legal standing to sue since they were affiliated with the agency.

Counsel to second defendant, Hannah Anyowale, prayed the court to discountenance the counter affidavit filed by the plaintiff and grant their application to strike out the matter.

Also, Divine Oguru, who appeared for the first defendant, SERAP, adopted the submissions of the second defendant.

However, the presiding judge, Yusuf Halilu, said all the processes for definite hearing were intact and that the court was ready to begin hearing into the matter.

This was as he wondered why the second defendant had already filed a defence on the matter.

He, however, urged that whatever objections the defendants have be submitted to the court so they can be determined and hearing can commence.

This, the judge said, was to avoid going back and forth on the matter.

He adjourned the hearing to next week after consultations by the counsels in the matter.

Meanwhile, counsel to the plaintiff A T. Kehinde SAN, who appeared with two others, described the submission of the defendant as lacking in merit and aimed at annoying, frustrating, and wasting the time of the court.

He said they had responded to all the objections and were ready for the hearing to begin.