SERAP SEEKS DISMISSAL OF N5BN DEFAMATION SUIT FILED BY DSS OFFICIALS
Read Time:1 Minute, 56 Second
By Aishat Momoh. O.
The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has urged the Federal Capital Territory High Court, Maitama, Abuja, to dismiss a N5 billion defamation suit filed against it by officials of the Department of State Services (DSS).
In a final written address adopted before Justice Yusuf Halilu on Thursday, SERAP argued that the claimants, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, failed to prove that the alleged defamatory publication referred to them personally.
The claimants are seeking N5bn in damages, N50 million in legal costs, a public apology to be published on SERAP’s website and in national newspapers, broadcast on television, as well as 10 per cent annual interest on the judgment sum until fully paid. They alleged that SERAP falsely claimed the DSS invaded its Abuja office in September 2024, which they said damaged their reputations.
Counsel to SERAP, Victoria Bassey, contended that the publications referred broadly to the DSS as an institution and did not mention the claimants’ names, ranks, or units. She cited the Supreme Court case of Onu v. Agbese, stating that for a plaintiff to succeed in a defamation suit, the defamatory words must reasonably be understood to refer to them personally.
“The publications in this issue refer to DSS, a national security agency with thousands of officers. Words directed at such a broad institutional body cannot automatically become personal defamation,” Bassey argued, urging the court to discountenance the suit.
Counsel to the second defendant, Oluwatosin Adesioye, described the lawsuit as “offensive” and argued that the claimants failed to establish special circumstances linking them to the publication. He noted that one witness only connected the publication to the claimants after being informed institutionally, which, he argued, is not sufficient under defamation law.
On their part, the claimants’ counsel, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), urged the court to grant all reliefs sought, challenging the page length of the second defendant’s written address and asserting that the publications referred to the claimants through innuendo, which suffices in defamation law when contextual facts identify the individuals allegedly defamed.
Justice Halilu noted that final written addresses serve to clarify legal arguments and cannot replace evidence before the court. He adjourned the matter for judgment, emphasizing that the court would balance arguments with the evidence presented.
The case remains pending, with judgment yet to be delivered.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0