Collins Olotor — Many erroneously hold the view that public institutions and their officials are to be criticised and accountability demanded from them at will, while they are only required to provide explanations and must not complain, even where wrongly portrayed and disparaged.
As a result, it is gradually becoming a pattern that individuals and groups, claiming the exercise of their democratic and constitutional rights, impugn the integrity of public institutions and their officials in the name of criticism, with scant regard for facts and accuracy.
These worrying trends were however, recently addressed in a judgment handed down by a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in a suit, marked: CV/4547/2024, filed by two officials of the Department of State Services (DSS), who claimed to have been defamed in publications made by a group, the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).
In the judgment delivered on May 5, 2026 by Justice Yusuf Halilu, the court held emphatically that the rights guaranteed by the country's Constitution, exercisable in a democracy, under which citizens and groups could criticise and demand accountability from state's institutions and officials, do not translate to the freedom to be reckless and lawless.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
Facts of the case
The claimants - Sarah John and Gabriel Ogunleye - claimed to have visited SERAP's Abuja office on September 9, 2024 in the course of a routine official assignment, but that shortly after their visit, the group made a false post on its X (twitter) handle, claiming among others that DSS officials were unlawfully occupying its Abuja office.
They stated that the tweet was not only retweeted 4000 times by other X (twitter) users, including media organisations, it was liked by over 7000 others, making it one of the most engaged tweets ever posted by SERAP on its X account.
The claimants also stated that the group followed up with a subsequent publication on its website, which was republished by both online and conventional media houses, falsely claiming the DSS officials invaded its Abuja office and subjected its staff to intimidation, harassment and attack.
They claimed that the two false publications did not only expose their organisation to undue public condemnation and criticism, it portrayed them (claimants) as being lawless, incompetent and unprofessional.
Effects of the publications
John and Ogunleye stated that, as a result of the false publications by SERAP, they were subjected to the internal disciplinary mechanisms of their organisation, leading to their suspension from duties pending the outcome of the investigation that was subsequently conducted.
The claimants described the publications as libelous on the grounds that they neither invade nor raid SERAP's Abuja office, adding that they also did not intimidate, harass or interrogate any member of its staff as the group claimed.
SERAP's defence
The defendants - SERAP and its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare - denied the claimants' allegations and stood by the content of their publications.
SERAP and Oluwadare stated that they were justified to have made the publications, insisting among others, that the claimants invaded and raided SERAP's Abuja office and subjected its staff to harassment and intimidation.
They queried the competence of the suit on, among others grounds, that the claimants could not claim to have been defamed because they were not identified by names in the publications, which the defendants claimed, were directed at the DSS as an organisation.
Court's findings
In the judgment, the court found among others, that the claimants clearly established, through credible evidence, the six coterminous ingredients required to be proved to succeed in a defamation suit.
It also found that, contrary to the defendants' claim that the claimants were not identified in the publications, the description of the claimants as "a tall, large, dark-skinned woman" and "a slim, dark-skinned man" constituted sufficient identification.
The court held that "it is not the law that a claimant, as in this case, needs to be named in a publication before an action for defamation can be maintained. Defamatory words could refer to a person by description, implication, context and or circumstance.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
"What is instructive is whether reasonable persons, who are seised of the relevant facts would understand the publication and link same to the claimant.
"This is innuendo, which is an indirect, often suggestive hint, insinuation, or allusion, typically intended to be derogatory, mean-spirited. It uses seemingly polite or innocent words to convey a hidden, negative, or risqué meaning."
It equally found that the claimants established the publication of the libelous materials through their second witness, who said he read the said publications and knew they referred to the claimants from the way they were described.
The court held that the defendants' argument that the claimants were not mentioned in the publications was of moment, because they (the defendants) did not deny making the publications, in which the body features of the claimants were described.
It stated that the argument of the defendants that the names of the claimants were not mentioned in the publication "is neither here nor there, as defendants seem to be blowing hot and cold at the same time.
