LIVE UPDATES
ABUJA, Nigeria - A judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Yusuf Halilu, scheduled a definitive hearing for March 21, 2025, for a defamation case brought by two officers of the Department of State Services (DSS) against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).
Last October, the DSS officers initiated a defamation lawsuit against SERAP after the organization did not apologize for alleging that the DSS officials had unlawfully entered its Abuja office the previous month.
The DSS officers are seeking ₦5 billion in damages, an apology to be published on SERAP’s website, social media, as well as in national newspapers and TV stations. They are also requesting ₦50 million for legal costs, in addition to an annual interest of 10 percent on the ₦5 billion until full payment is made.
When the case was brought up for a definitive hearing on March 12, 2025, SERAP’s legal team presented several preliminary applications and objections. These objections focused on the court’s jurisdiction, claims of improper service of documents, and the assertion that the DSS officers lacked legal standing to sue since they were representing an agency.
Hannah Anyowale, counsel for the second defendant, asked the court to disregard the counter-affidavit filed by the plaintiff and to grant their motion to dismiss the case. Divine Oguru, representing the first defendant, SERAP, supported the arguments made by the second defendant.
However, Judge Yusuf Halilu remarked that all necessary processes for a definitive hearing were in order and that the court was prepared to begin the proceedings.
He expressed curiosity as to why the second defendant had filed a defense in the case already.
He encouraged the defendants to present any objections they might have to the court, so those could be resolved, thereby enabling the hearing to start. This, the judge noted, would help prevent delays in the proceedings.
He postponed the hearing to the following week after consultations with the attorneys involved.
In the meantime, A. T. Kehinde, SAN, representing the plaintiff along with two colleagues, characterized the defendants’ submissions as lacking merit and intended to irritate, frustrate, and waste the court's time. He stated that they had addressed all objections and were prepared for the hearing to commence.
