A coalition of 52 Nigerian Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), human rights advocates, and public interest groups has expressed dismay over recent developments surrounding 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 have warned of potential consequences for civic freedoms, judicial transparency, and constitutional democracy.
Concerns Over Judgment Transparency
In a joint statement, the organisations voiced their unease about what they described as growing public discourse around the judgment, despite reports 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. The statement was 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.
According to the groups, such circumstances raise significant concerns regarding procedural fairness, institutional responsibility, and adherence to the principles of due process that underpin constitutional democracy. 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 argued that fair hearing extends beyond courtroom proceedings to include transparency, access to judicial decisions, and the opportunity to pursue appellate rights.
Constitutional and International Legal Framework
The statement further 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 organisations also 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.
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.
Delay in Release of Certified True Copy
The groups expressed concern over what they described as the apparent delay in releasing the Certified True Copy of the judgment, stressing that timely access to court decisions is central to the administration of justice. “Without access to the judgment, litigants may be unable to properly evaluate their legal position, pursue informed appellate review, or respond responsibly in the public domain,” they said.
The coalition 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. They argued 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.
Warning Against Intimidation
The organisations also cautioned against what they described as the increasing use of defamation litigation, coercive legal measures, and institutional intimidation in cases involving anti-corruption advocacy and public accountability work. “Democratic societies depend on the ability of civil society organisations to question authority, scrutinise public institutions, and engage in robust public-interest advocacy without fear of disproportionate retaliation,” they noted.
The coalition further maintained that seeking appellate review of a judgment should not be construed as contempt for the judiciary or disobedience to the rule of law, warning that such interpretations could weaken constitutional safeguards and discourage legitimate legal recourse.
Demands and Recommendations
The groups called for the immediate release of the Certified True Copy 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.
