By Daily Review Online
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, has faulted the recent court judgment awarding ₦100 million in damages against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project in a defamation suit instituted by officials of the Department of State Services.
Reacting to the ruling, Adegboruwa, who is part of SERAP’s legal team in the ₦5.5 billion lawsuit, argued that the judgment failed to reflect key legal arguments presented before the court. He specifically questioned the court’s position on the legal identity of the agency, noting uncertainties over whether the institution is properly designated as DSS or SSS under Nigerian law.
The senior lawyer also raised concerns about whether public officials can sue for defamation in their personal capacity over actions carried out in the course of their official duties. According to him, the court did not adequately consider SERAP’s argument on this issue.
Adegboruwa further criticised the judgment for allegedly overlooking the fact that the plaintiffs were still under internal investigation by their employer at the time of the suit. Despite this, he said, the court proceeded to find SERAP liable for libel without establishing the identities of those purportedly defamed.
He described the ₦100 million damages awarded to the plaintiffs as excessive, noting that they did not provide evidence of their ranks or salary structures to justify such compensation. He questioned the basis for determining the amount, asking how damages could be assessed without clear proof of the plaintiffs’ status and earnings.
The lawyer also pointed out what he termed an inconsistency in the case, arguing that the plaintiffs, who were reportedly on official assignment funded by public resources, turned around to seek personal damages. He queried whether the awarded sum would go to the individuals or their employer.
In addition, Adegboruwa faulted the court’s decision to award a 10 percent interest on the damages, insisting that no contractual relationship existed and that the plaintiffs did not establish any legal basis for such interest.
Describing the ruling as “strange” and without precedent, he warned that it poses a threat to democratic accountability, particularly for non-governmental organisations. He disclosed that steps were already being taken to challenge the judgment at the appellate court.