A delay in filing briefs stalled the appeals filed by the Incorporated Trustees of the Socio-economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) and its deputy director, Kolawole Oluwadare, at the Appeal Court on Friday.

The two appeals, filed by SERAP and Mr Oluwadare, were against the May 5 judgment of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) High Court, in which it was held that the group and its deputy director defamed two officials of the State Security Service (SSS) through a false publication they made on September 10, 2024.

At the resumed proceedings on Friday, a three-member panel of the appellate court, presided over by Justice Danlami Senchi, heard the first appeal, marked CA/ABJ/CV/1114/2026, filed by SERAP.

When the second appeal, marked CA/ABJ/CV/1105/2026, filed by Mr Oluwadare, was called, the appellant’s lawyer, Hannah Ayanwale, told the court that the appeal was not ripe for hearing.

He said the appellant filed his brief on Thursday and served it on the respondents in court on Friday morning, just before the court began sitting.

The panel was not happy with Mr Ayanwale’s failure to inform the court earlier that her client’s appeal, which is a sister appeal to the one filed by SERAP, was not ripe for hearing.

The court, however, elected to set aside the proceedings earlier conducted on the first appeal on the grounds that since they are sister appeals that emanated from the same judgment, they ought to be heard together.

It then adjourned the hearing on the two appeals until October 13 and ordered the respondents to file their briefs on or before October 12, and the appellant to file a reply brief before the court sits on the next adjourned date.

The May 5 judgment, delivered by Justice Yusuf Halilu of the FCT High Court, was on the suit marked CV/4547/2024, filed by SSS officials Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele.

They accused SERAP and Mr Oluwadare of making false claims in publications on the group’s website and social media platforms that the claimants invaded their Abuja office on September 9, 2024, and subjected them to harassment.

Mr Halilu held that the claimants led sufficient evidence to establish all the ingredients of defamation.

Mr Halilu rejected that defence of justification raised by SERAP and Mr Oluwadare on the grounds that they failed to provide evidence that their publications were not based on falsehood.

The judge noted that words like “invasion” and “forceful entry and harassment” were used inaccurately and that the defendants admitted at trial that the SSS officials did not forcefully enter SERAP’s premises or brandish any weapon.

He held that the defendants’ publications injured the claimants’ reputation in their professional capacity and standing in society.

Mr Halilu said, “Having been unable to establish invasion and harassment, the defence of justification fails. There is no doubt that the publication affected the claimants mentally and psychologically.”

The judge said that, going forward, SERAP and its officials needed to exercise care and due diligence before releasing information to the public.

He added that, in exercising their right to post and share information, the defendants should be aware of others’ rights, particularly those of government agencies and their officials.

The judge dismissed the defendants’ objection to the suit’s competence and held that the claimants had the requisite locus standi to file the suit, which the court has jurisdiction to entertain.

He held that, against the defendants’ argument, the claimants must not be named in the publication for defamation to be established.

Mr Halilu noted that from when the claimants complained about the inaccuracy of the publications, the defendants failed to take any steps to pull down the injurious publication.

He proceeded to adjudicate the publications as defamatory and awarded damages of N100 million against the defendants, in addition to N1 million as the cost of prosecuting the suit.

The judge also ordered the defendants to publish a public apology on SERAP’s website, X handle, two national daily newspapers and two television stations.

He held that the judgment sum shall attract 10 per cent per annum from the date of the judgment until the sum is paid by the defendants.

(NAN)