The Defamation Suit: Unveiling the Contested Narrative
The heart of this legal battle lies in a contested narrative surrounding an alleged incident at the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) office in Abuja on September 9, 2024. SERAP, a prominent human rights organization, publicly claimed that its office was invaded by operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS), Nigeria’s intelligence agency. This allegation forms the crux of the defamation suit filed against SERAP by two DSS operatives, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele, who allege that the claim not only damaged their reputations but also tarnished the image of the DSS as a whole. They seek substantial damages, an apology, and legal costs, setting the stage for a high-stakes legal confrontation.
The Plaintiffs’ Case: Seeking Reparation for Reputational Damage
The DSS operatives, John and Ogundele, argue that SERAP’s public statements about the alleged office invasion were false and defamatory. They contend that these statements painted them in a negative light, portraying them as agents involved in an unwarranted intrusion into the premises of a human rights organization. The gravity of their claim is reflected in the substantial sum they seek in damages – N5 billion, along with an additional N50 million for legal costs. Their demand also includes a public apology from SERAP, to be published on their website, national newspapers, and broadcast on television, underscoring their pursuit of widespread acknowledgment of the alleged reputational harm they suffered.
The DSS Testimony: Relying on Secondary Sources and Internal Knowledge
The DSS, in its effort to substantiate its position, called John Afolabi, an operative described as an Investigation Director, as its final witness. Afolabi’s testimony, however, revealed a reliance on secondary sources of information rather than direct observation. He admitted under cross-examination that his knowledge of the events stemmed from internet sources, media reports, and interviews he conducted. This admission raised questions about the veracity and reliability of his account, especially concerning the alleged visit to SERAP’s office, which he acknowledged he did not personally witness.
Afolabi’s Account: A Mixture of Hearsay and Internal Investigation
Despite not being present at the scene, Afolabi claimed familiarity with the events through his investigation following the public outcry. He described the claimants, John and Ogundele, as competent and professional subordinates, highlighting their positive attributes within the DSS. However, his inability to produce direct evidence of his own identity as a DSS operative beyond an affidavit further complicated the narrative. His testimony primarily focused on the public reaction to SERAP’s allegations, particularly on social media, which he suggested amplified the embarrassment felt by the DSS. This focus shifted the attention from the actual incident to its perceived consequences, further muddying the waters of the already complex case.
The Defence’s Counter-Narrative: Challenging the DSS’s Claims
SERAP’s legal team, led by Divine Oguru, challenged Afolabi’s testimony by highlighting its reliance on secondary sources and the absence of firsthand knowledge. They questioned his assertion that the claimants’ visit to SERAP’s office constituted an "operation," emphasizing that their actions were not covert or aggressive. The defense sought to establish that no intrusion or invasion, as alleged by SERAP, actually occurred. This contrasting narrative sets the stage for a crucial battle of credibility between the two sides.
The Looming Legal Showdown: SERAP’s Defence Takes Center Stage
With the DSS having closed its case, the legal spotlight now shifts to SERAP, which is scheduled to open its defense on June 30, 2025. This upcoming phase of the trial promises to be pivotal. SERAP will have the opportunity to present its version of events, challenge the DSS’s narrative, and offer evidence to support its claim of an office invasion. The court’s ultimate decision will hinge on the credibility of the evidence presented and the persuasiveness of the arguments made by both sides. This case not only holds significant implications for the reputations of the parties involved but also raises broader questions about freedom of expression, the role of human rights organizations, and the balance between national security and accountability.
