SERAP has filed an appeal challenging a N100 million judgment against it. The rights group wants the Federal Capital Territory High Court's decision reversed.
On May 8, SERAP's lawyer Tayo Oyetibo (SAN) submitted the appeal papers. He also asked the court to freeze execution of the ruling pending appeal.
Two DSS officials brought the case against SERAP last year. Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele sued over statements the organisation made in September 2024.
SERAP had alleged that DSS operatives forcefully entered its Abuja office without authority. The officials rejected these claims and sought damages.
Justice Yusuf Halilu delivered the judgment on May 5. He ordered SERAP to pay N100 million to the plaintiffs immediately.
Additionally, SERAP must publish public apologies in national newspapers. It'll pay N1 million in court costs plus 10 percent annual interest on damages.
SERAP's Deputy Director Kolawole Oluwadare spoke to reporters on Tuesday. He called the decision "a travesty and a miscarriage of justice."
According to the organisation's lawyers, the court made serious legal mistakes. These errors affected the court's power to hear the case fairly.
"The decision rests on fundamental legal and evidential errors that go to the root of jurisdiction and fairness in adjudication," SERAP stated. "The court's decision is therefore perverse and a nullity."
SERAP attacked the evidence the trial court relied upon. One witness statement was never sworn before a commissioner for oaths, it argued.
SERAP also challenged the court's finding that it named the officials. The publications never mentioned their names, ranks, or photographs anywhere.
"The publications complained of did not mention the respondents by name, rank, photograph, or any unique identifier," SERAP's notice of appeal read.
A pre-action letter from DSS itself acknowledged something important. It recognised that SERAP's statements targeted DSS as an institution, not individuals.
SERAP noted another defect in the case from day one. It was originally filed against "SERAP" as a defendant, which isn't a legal entity.
The suit was later amended to name SERAP's incorporated trustees instead. SERAP's lawyers say this initial mistake undermined the entire proceeding.
