A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), on Wednesday, March 12, 2025 fixed hearing on a case of defamation filed by two officers of the Department of State Services (DSS) against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) for Wednesday, March 25, 2025.
The officers of the DSS had in October last year, filed a defamation suit against SERAP after the organization failed to apologize for accusing the DSS officials of unlawfully invading its Abuja office a month earlier.
Among the reliefs sought by the DSS officers are ₦5billion in damages, an apology to be published on SERAP’s website, social media, and in national newspapers and TV stations.
The officers are also demanding an additional ₦50 million as legal costs and 10 percent annual interest on the N5 billion until payment is made in full.
When the matter came up for a definitive hearing on Wednesday, March 12, 2025, SERAP’s legal team raised several interlocutory applications and objections which centred on the court’s jurisdiction.
SERAP also said that it was not properly served, adding that the DSS officials lacked legal standing to sue since they were affiliated with the agency.
Counsel to second defendant, Hannah Anyowale, prayed the court to discountenance the counter affidavit filed by the plaintiff and grant their application to strike out the matter.
Also, Divine Oguru, who appeared for the first defendant, SERAP, adopted the submissions of the second defendant.
However, the presiding judge, Yusuf Halilu, said all the processes for definite hearing were intact and that the court was ready to begin hearing into the matter.
The trial judge however wondered why the second defendant had already filed a defence on the matter and therefore directed that whatever objections the defendants have should be submitted to the court so they can be determined to enable hearing to commence.
Justice Halilu also said it would be good if they can avoid going back and forth on the matter and therefore adjourned the hearing to next week after consultations by the counsels in the matter.
Meanwhile, counsel to the plaintiff, A T. Kehinde, SAN, who appeared with two others, described the submission of the defendant as lacking in merit and aimed at annoying, frustrating, and wasting the time of the court.
Kehinde said they had responded to all the objections and were ready for the hearing to begin.
