On 5 May 2026, the Federal Capital Territory High Court ordered the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) to pay ₦100 million in damages to two Department of State Services (DSS) officials for defamation, alongside ₦1 million in litigation costs, public apologies, and 10% annual post-judgment interest. The ruling stems from allegations made by SERAP in September 2024 that DSS operatives unlawfully entered its Abuja office after the organisation called for investigations into alleged corruption at the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) and fuel price increases.
The case, initially filed as a ₦5.5 billion claim, was described by SERAP as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). Following the judgment, SERAP rejected the ruling as “totally unacceptable”, filed an appeal on 8 May 2026 with Senior Advocates of Nigeria, and applied for a stay of execution, arguing that the case represents an attempt to restrict civic accountability and free expression. The DSS maintained that its visit was routine and that its officers were subjected to false allegations.
Civil society organisations and human rights groups have warned that the ruling could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression, particularly for journalists, activists, and accountability organisations such as SERAP. They argue that the judgment risks expanding the use of defamation law as a tool to intimidate civil society and restrict public-interest advocacy, reinforcing concerns that the case reflects characteristics of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). The dispute is also notable as a rare defamation suit brought by security operatives against a civil society organisation in Nigeria, raising broader concerns about the use of litigation in contexts involving state accountability and oversight.
The case remains ongoing, with SERAP’s appeal pending as of June 2026, and observers note that its outcome could set an important precedent for the legal framework governing civic space and government accountability in Nigeria, particularly in balancing defamation claims with the protection of public-interest speech. The developments point to growing tensions between state security institutions and civil society organisations in Nigeria, with potential implications for the enabling environment for civic advocacy, oversight, and public-interest litigation, as well as the protection of fundamental freedoms.