The Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) has called for measured reactions to the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), which awarded N100 million in damages to two operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS) in a defamation suit involving the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).

Justice Halilu Yusuf also ordered SERAP to pay N1 million as litigation costs to the operatives, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, and to publish an apology in two national newspapers, two television stations, as well as on its website and X handle.

Some members and associates of SERAP have expressed concerns over the judgment. A senior lawyer and trustee of the organisation, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, said the ruling did not fully reflect the legal arguments presented, while the group’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare, described the outcome as unusual.

In response, CDHR said public commentary on court decisions should be guided by restraint and respect for due process. In a statement signed by its President, Debo Adeniran, the group emphasised that while criticism is a constitutional right, it should be expressed responsibly.

CDHR advised that parties dissatisfied with the judgment should explore the appellate process, noting that adherence to legal procedures helps maintain confidence in the justice system.

The group also reiterated that the rule of law requires all parties—state institutions and civil society alike—to operate within established legal frameworks, adding that this balance is essential for sustaining democratic governance.

Similarly, the Centre Against Injustice and Domestic Violence (CAIDOV), in a statement by its Executive Director, Gbenga Soloki, urged stakeholders to remain mindful of the broader implications of public statements on judicial matters, stressing the need for balance in the defence of rights and responsibilities.

CAIDOV further noted that while advocacy organisations play a vital role in promoting accountability, such efforts should be pursued in ways that strengthen, rather than undermine, public trust in key institutions, including the judiciary.