…Warns of Chilling Effect on Civic Space
The Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA) has noted with deep concern the judgment of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, Nigeria, delivered on 5 May 2026 awarding N100 million (approximately USD 65,000) in damages and N1 million (approximately USD 650) in legal costs against public interest NGO Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) in a civil defamation suit by officials of the Department of State Service (DSS).
On 9 September 2024, SERAP issued a statement concerning the visit of two DSS officials to its Abuja office, which the organisation characterised as an act of invasion, intimidation, and harassment. The following day, the DSS issued a formal rebuttal, disputing SERAP’s account of the incident and describing the organisation’s narrative as inaccurate and misleading. This was followed by a defamation suit filed by the two DSS officials, claiming N5 billion (approximately USD 3.2 million) against SERAP for false claims alleged to have injured their character and reputation. The suit culminated in the judgment that is currently under appeal by SERAP.
While IHRDA recognises the legitimate interest of individuals and institutions in protecting their reputation and acknowledges the important role that defamation laws may play in this regard, 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. This is more so in the context of a well-documented pattern of intimidation of NGOs and human rights defenders by the DSS in Nigeria. Viewed against this broader context, the proceedings bear several characteristics commonly associated with Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)—legal actions that seek to discourage scrutiny, criticism, or participation in matters of public interest 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.
The case arises against a broader trend of shrinking civic space in Africa, where civil society organisations, human rights defenders, journalists, anti-corruption advocates, and other public-interest actors increasingly face legal, administrative, and other forms of pressure in response
to their work. In this context, measures that may deter legitimate calls for accountability risk contributing to a chilling effect on freedom of expression, transparency, and accountability.
Freedom of expression is guaranteed under Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, as well as other international and regional human rights instruments, to which Nigeria is a party. IHRDA recalls the freedom of expression standards developed by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), which emphasise the need for States to ensure that defamation laws protect legimate expression, allow constructive criticism of public officials and prohibit disproportionate sanctions that could deter legitimate criticism and public accountability efforts.
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. Public-interest actors must be able to raise concerns, scrutinise the conduct of public institutions and contribute to democratic accountability without fear of disproportionate legal consequences. IHRDA will continue to monitor developments in the case and remains committed to supporting efforts to protect civic space and ensure that legal frameworks across Africa are implemented in accordance with regional and international human rights standards.
