By BONIFACE AKARAH

The Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa has expressed concern over the N100 million defamation judgment awarded against the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), warning that the ruling could discourage civil society organisations from speaking out on matters of public interest and weaken Nigeria's civic space.

The rights body, in a statement, said while it recognised the right of individuals and institutions to protect their reputations through defamation laws, courts must also guard against decisions capable of stifling legitimate public-interest advocacy and accountability efforts.

The case stems from a September 9, 2024 statement issued by SERAP alleging that officials of the Department of State Services invaded, intimidated and harassed its Abuja office. The DSS denied the allegations the following day, describing the claims as false and misleading before two of its officials instituted a N5 billion defamation suit against the organisation.

The High Court of the Federal Capital Territory subsequently awarded N100 million in damages and N1 million in legal costs against SERAP in a judgment delivered on May 5, 2026. The decision is currently being challenged on appeal.

IHRDA said it was particularly worried about the wider implications of the judgment for civil society organisations engaged in public-interest litigation and advocacy.

"We are concerned about the broader human rights implications of judgments that may have the effect of discouraging or inhibiting the work of civil society organisations engaged in public-interest advocacy and accountability efforts," the organisation said.

The institute argued that the case should be viewed against what it described as a broader pattern of intimidation of non-governmental organisations and human rights defenders in Nigeria.

According to IHRDA, the proceedings bear characteristics commonly associated with Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), which are legal actions designed to discourage criticism, scrutiny and public participation through the threat of costly litigation.

"Courts of law are duty-bound to identify SLAPPs and understand their underlying motive and censoring impact on public interest and human rights work, especially by known bona fide public interest and accountability actors," it stated.

The organisation also linked the case to what it described as a growing contraction of civic space across Africa, where journalists, anti-corruption advocates, civil society organisations and human rights defenders increasingly face legal and administrative pressure over their work.

It warned that actions capable of deterring legitimate criticism of public institutions could undermine transparency, accountability and democratic participation.

IHRDA recalled that freedom of expression is guaranteed under Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and other international human rights instruments to which Nigeria is a signatory.

It also cited standards developed by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, which require states to ensure that defamation laws protect legitimate expression, permit constructive criticism of public officials and avoid disproportionate sanctions capable of discouraging public accountability.

"As the appeal proceeds, IHRDA urges the courts to carefully balance the protection of reputation with the need to safeguard freedom of expression, civic participation and public-interest advocacy," the institute said.

It added that public-interest actors must be able to question the conduct of public institutions and contribute to democratic accountability "without fear of disproportionate legal consequences."

The organisation said it would continue to monitor the appeal and remain committed to promoting legal frameworks across Africa that protect civic space in line with regional and international human rights standards.