By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

A special panel of the Court of Appeal in Abuja on Tuesday returned the case files of appeals seeking to set aside a judgment that ordered the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) to pay N100 million in damages for defaming two Department of State Services (DSS) officials.

The three-member panel, led by Justice Danlami Senchi, held that the cases would be returned to the President of the Court of Appeal for a decision on when they would be heard.

The two appeals, marked CA/ABJ/CV/1114/2026 and CA/ABJ/CV/1105/2026, were filed by SERAP and its Deputy Director, Mr. Kolawole Oluwadare, respectively.

The development came after the first appeal had already been heard and reserved for judgment.

However, when the second case was called, counsel for the appellant, Mr. Oluwatosin Adesioye, sought an extension of time to enable him to amend the reliefs and file additional records.

Even though the appellant subsequently withdrew the application, the special panel noted that it might not be able to determine the appeals before the expiration of the period allotted for it to sit.

It therefore vacated the date reserved for judgment on the first appeal and directed the return of the case files to the registry.

“Both files are hereby returned to the President for a decision on a date for the hearing of both appeals, which will be communicated to the parties,” Justice Senchi held.

The development came after the appellate court declined to admit reports submitted by organisations that had approached it seeking leave to make input in the case as amici curiae (friends of the court).

The court rejected the documents from the Southern Africa Litigation Centre, UN Special Rapporteurs and Columbia University on the grounds that it had not invited any of the organisations into the matter.

It will be recalled that a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), in a judgment delivered on May 5, awarded damages against SERAP and Mr. Oluwadare, who were sued as the 1st and 2nd defendants.

Trial Justice Yusuf Halilu held that he was satisfied that the non-governmental organisation had, on September 9, 2024, tarnished the reputations of two DSS personnel, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, when it falsely alleged that they had invaded its office in Abuja.

The court held that the defendants had unjustly defamed the operatives when they published on SERAP’s website and X (formerly Twitter) handle that the operatives had invaded the office and harassed a staff member.

According to the court, the publication was in bad taste.

Therefore, in addition to the N100m damages, the court ordered SERAP to tender public apologies to the defamed DSS operatives in two national newspapers, on two television stations and on its website.

It also ordered the defendants to pay the two operatives N1m to cover the cost of the litigation, as well as 10 per cent annual interest on the judgment sum until it is fully liquidated.

The judgment followed Suit No. CV/4547/2024, which the two operatives filed before the court to challenge what they regarded as SERAP’s false claim, which had negatively affected both their reputations and the corporate image of the DSS.

The second appellant, Mr. Oluwadare, had clarified the organisation’s work and the events surrounding the alleged invasion of its Abuja office by DSS operatives in his testimony before the trial court.

Answering questions under cross-examination, Mr. Oluwadare told the court that DSS operatives had stormed the organisation’s office, a development that prompted it to alert the public.

He added that several SERAP staff members, including a front-desk officer, a security guard and a lawyer, had reported the officials’ presence.

Asked whether the staff members were assaulted or doors were broken, the witness confirmed there was no physical attack.

He insisted, however, that the manner of entry and the presence of unmarked vehicles used by the operatives had led SERAP to issue a public statement.

Mr. Oluwadare further stated that the organisation had CCTV footage of the incident, adding that the messages SERAP sent out through its X handle reflected the seriousness of what its staff members observed that day.

Dismissing suggestions that the organisation existed only to criticise the government, he insisted that SERAP’s mandate is to promote and protect human rights, including socio-economic rights, in the overall public interest.

He maintained that the harassment and intimidation of civic actors pose a grave threat to SERAP’s work and hamper its efforts to hold public institutions accountable.

The appellants are asking the court to set aside the High Court judgment in its entirety, insisting that the trial judge erred in law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice against them.