Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, a prominent lawyer and human rights advocate, has strongly criticized the Federal High Court judgment that ordered the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) to pay N100 million in damages for defamation to State Security Services (SSS) operatives. Odinkalu described the ruling as “corrupt and crooked, deeply flawed and inconsistent with the principles of law.”
Background of the Case
The Federal High Court directed SERAP to pay the damages, publish public apologies, and cover litigation costs. The civil suit was filed by DSS officials after SERAP alleged in September 2024 that operatives unlawfully invaded its Abuja office. SERAP had made the allegation following its criticism of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited over increases in the pump price of Premium Motor Spirit (PMS).
SERAP’s Response and Appeal
SERAP has appealed the judgment and filed an application for a stay of execution pending the appeal. The organization described the ruling as a “travesty,” arguing that the court relied on defective evidence and committed significant legal and procedural errors.
Odinkalu’s Reaction
Reacting to the decision, Odinkalu stated: “To call this judgment a travesty is to do injustice to travesties. The facts do not add up to a case in defamation.” He argued that the evidence from the claimants actually supports SERAP’s claim that their office was invaded. Odinkalu raised serious questions about judicial integrity, suggesting the judge may have invented something other than law in this case. “It is, of course, possible that the judge did not study law or, perhaps, that the judge chose to invent something other than law in this case. But the judgment is corrupt and crooked on the face of the record,” he added.
Legal Arguments from SERAP
SERAP, through its counsel Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), argued that the ruling was legally defective, procedurally flawed, and unsupported by credible evidence. The organization contended that the publications complained of did not specifically identify the claimants and that the trial court relied on defective witness evidence. SERAP warned that enforcing the judgment could severely disrupt its operations and undermine its ability to continue human rights interventions and accountability campaigns.
Outrage from Civil Society
The ruling sparked widespread outrage across Nigeria’s civic and legal communities. Critics warned that the judgment could create a chilling effect on anti-corruption advocacy, human rights work, and public-interest journalism. Amnesty International Nigeria condemned the judgment as a dangerous blow to free expression and civic space, characterizing the suit as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). Such legal actions are commonly used to intimidate critics and discourage public advocacy.
Amnesty International’s Concerns
According to Amnesty International, the judgment risks undermining constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of expression, association, and civic participation. “This judgment sends a deeply troubling signal about the state of civic space in Nigeria,” the body said. The organization warned that the ruling could embolden the increasing use of defamation suits against activists, journalists, and civil society organizations engaged in accountability work. Amnesty International argued that public officials and institutions in democratic societies must tolerate higher levels of scrutiny, especially on matters of corruption, governance, and public accountability. It cited Sections 39 and 40 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantee freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association, as well as international human rights instruments to which Nigeria is a signatory.
Coalition of CSOs Reacts
A coalition of 52 civil society organizations, including ActionAid Nigeria, Media Rights Agenda, Yiaga Africa, and the Centre for Democracy and Development, issued a joint statement expressing concern over the judgment and the delay in releasing the Certified True Copy (CTC). The coalition argued that access to judicial decisions is essential for fair hearing, transparency, and the effective exercise of appellate rights.
Calls for Judicial Integrity
Legal researcher Anietie Ewang called on the Nigerian judiciary to safeguard democratic accountability and sustain public confidence in the rule of law. Ewang emphasized that judicial authorities must ensure transparency, uphold due process, and protect constitutional and internationally guaranteed human rights as the appeal process continues. “The Nigerian judiciary has a critical role to play in safeguarding democratic accountability and public confidence in the rule of law,” Ewang said.
