A coalition of 52 civil society organizations, human rights advocates, and public interest groups has expressed deep concern over the defamation judgment reportedly obtained by officials of the Department of State Services (DSS) against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP). The groups warned that this development could have serious implications for civic freedoms, judicial transparency, and constitutional democracy in Nigeria.
Joint Statement Highlights Procedural Concerns
In a joint statement signed by ActionAid Nigeria, Amnesty International Nigeria, BudgIT Foundation, Centre for Democracy and Development, Media Rights Agenda, Yiaga Africa, Transition Monitoring Group, Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa, Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, SERAP, and others, the organizations noted that they were troubled by the growing public discourse surrounding the judgment. They pointed out that neither the Certified True Copy (CTC) nor the full text of the ruling had been publicly released at the time reactions and commentaries emerged, raising important questions about procedural fairness, institutional responsibility, and adherence to due process principles that underpin constitutional democracy.
Civic Hive Calls for Data-Driven Engagement
In a related development, Civic Hive urged civil society organizations to shift from street protests to constructive, data-driven engagement with the government to shape policy and strengthen democracy. According to the group, this approach prioritizes accountability, civic technology, and grassroots involvement, particularly among youths, to foster sustainable development and inclusive governance. Joseph Amenaghawon, Head of Civic Hive, stated during a media briefing on the nomination for Active Citizens Awards 2026 that the civil space has evolved over the last five years, moving from an emphasis on closing civil space to more strategic engagement. Members of the public are encouraged to submit nominations for deserving individuals and organizations through the official nomination platform from May 14, 2026, to June 14, 2026.
Constitutional and International Legal Framework
The coalition cited Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court. They emphasized that fair hearing extends beyond courtroom proceedings to include transparency, access to judicial decisions, and the opportunity to pursue appellate rights. The statement also referenced Section 39(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information without interference, as well as Section 22, which mandates the media and civic actors to hold government accountable. The organizations further relied on international legal instruments, including Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, noting that the African Charter has been domesticated in Nigerian law through the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.
African Commission Standards
According to the coalition, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has consistently maintained that restrictions on civic expression and public-interest advocacy must satisfy tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality in a democratic society. The groups expressed concern over the apparent delay in releasing the CTC of the judgment, stressing that timely access to court decisions is central to the administration of justice. They added that the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done, describing fair hearing as the bedrock of constitutional adjudication in Nigeria.
Implications of Delayed Judgment Release
The coalition warned that delays in making judgments or certified true copies available in matters of significant constitutional and public importance could undermine fair hearing and appeal rights, transparency in judicial administration, public confidence in the courts, responsible civic engagement, and trust in democratic institutions. They cautioned against the increasing use of defamation litigation, coercive legal measures, and institutional intimidation in cases involving anti-corruption advocacy and public accountability work.
Calls for Action
The organizations maintained that seeking appellate review of a judgment should not be construed as contempt for the judiciary or disobedience to the rule of law. They called for the immediate release of the CTC of the judgment, respect for constitutional and international human rights protections, greater institutional restraint in public commentary on judicial matters, protection of civic space from intimidation, and continued commitment to constitutionalism and democratic accountability.
