Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, and former chairman of Nigeria’s National Human Rights Commission, Prof. Chidi Odinkalu, have openly criticised the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) over its position on the recent court judgment involving the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).
The controversy follows a Federal Capital Territory High Court ruling ordering SERAP to pay ₦100 million in damages to two DSS officials over alleged defamation linked to claims that DSS operatives invaded the organisation’s Abuja office in 2024.
Following the judgment, a faction of the CDHR reportedly urged SERAP to comply with the court ruling rather than publicly criticising the decision or framing it as intimidation by security agencies.
However, Falana strongly rejected the group’s position, insisting that SERAP retains a constitutional right to challenge the judgment through the appeal process.
According to the human rights lawyer, filing an appeal against a court judgment does not amount to disobedience of court orders.
“An aggrieved party has the unquestionable right to file an appeal against the judgment of a court,” Falana stated while reacting to the controversy.
He also referenced historical legal precedents involving late legal icon Gani Fawehinmi, arguing that several controversial judgments in Nigeria’s legal history were eventually overturned on appeal.
Falana specifically noted that Fawehinmi successfully appealed a defamation judgment against him and never paid the damages initially awarded by the court.
Prof. Chidi Odinkalu also criticised the CDHR leadership, accusing the organisation of inconsistency regarding enforcement of court judgments involving government institutions.
In a post shared on social media platform X, Odinkalu questioned why the group suddenly became vocal about enforcing the judgment against SERAP while allegedly remaining silent on previous court orders ignored by government agencies.
The dispute has intensified debates within Nigeria’s civil society and human rights community over freedom of expression, judicial independence, and the growing use of defamation lawsuits involving activists and advocacy groups.
SERAP had earlier described the court ruling as a “travesty” and a dangerous precedent for civic freedom in Nigeria.
The organisation argued that the judgment could discourage legitimate advocacy, anti-corruption activism, and public accountability efforts.
SERAP also announced that its lawyers, including Senior Advocates Tayo Oyetibo and Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, had already initiated an appeal against the ruling.
The original lawsuit stemmed from allegations made by SERAP in September 2024 claiming that DSS operatives unlawfully entered its Abuja office following the group’s criticism of the Federal Government and the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL).
The DSS officials involved denied wrongdoing and filed a ₦5.5 billion defamation suit against the organisation.
Justice Yusuf Halilu of the FCT High Court eventually ruled in favour of the DSS officials, awarding ₦100 million in damages and ordering SERAP to issue public apologies.
The case has since become a major talking point among lawyers, activists, journalists, and political observers across Nigeria.
Analysts say the controversy reflects growing tensions between security agencies and civil society organisations amid increasing debates over civic freedoms and accountability in the country.
Human rights advocates also warn that defamation suits involving advocacy organisations could create wider concerns about press freedom and democratic participation if not carefully handled within constitutional limits.
Others, however, insist that public institutions and security officials also possess legal rights to challenge allegations they consider false or damaging.
The latest disagreement between Falana, Odinkalu, and the CDHR highlights widening divisions within Nigeria’s rights advocacy community over how to respond to politically sensitive court rulings.
As the appeal process begins, the outcome of the case could significantly influence future debates around freedom of expression, defamation laws, and civic activism in Nigeria.