N101m Defamation Suit: SERAP appeal panel returns case for reassignment

The Court of Appeal panel hearing the appeals filed by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) against a N101 million defamation judgment on Tuesday ordered that one of the cases be returned for reassignment following procedural difficulties during proceedings.

The development occurred after the panel, led by Justice Danlami Senchi, expressed dissatisfaction with the presentation of an application filed by SERAP’s Deputy Director, Kolawole Oladare.

The panel’s decision followed a courtroom drama involving applications by international human rights bodies and organisations seeking permission to participate in the proceedings as amici curiae, or friends of the court.

The applications were subsequently withdrawn after the court questioned the need for the proposed interventions.

The N101 million judgment was awarded in May by a High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in favour of two operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS) in a defamation suit against SERAP.

Tuesday’s proceedings marked the second procedural setback in less than a week for the appeal associated with Oladare.

On Friday, the panel adjourned the matter until Tuesday after SERAP failed to file the relevant application required for the proceedings, forcing the three-member panel, whose members had travelled to Abuja for the hearing, to postpone the case.

Court questions applications by amici curiae

The drama began when SERAP’s lead counsel, Tayo Oyetibo (SAN), informed the panel that an application had been filed seeking permission for certain organisations and individuals to participate in the appeal as amici curiae.

Following the court’s indication that it would hear the application, Prof. Olanrewaju Fagbohun (SAN), a former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Lagos, rose to address the panel.

Fagbohun identified himself as representing Columbia University through its Columbia Global Freedom of Expression initiative, alongside United Nations special rapporteurs responsible for freedom of assembly and association, and freedom of opinion and expression.

He told the court that an application dated October 12 had been filed seeking leave for the proposed participants to assist the panel through independent submissions.

However, the presiding judge, Justice Senchi, questioned whether the court had invited the proposed participants to intervene.

“Did the court invite you? Let’s be serious. This is the kind of image we create that is not good for us. We didn’t invite you,” the judge said.

He stressed that the court had not requested assistance and urged counsel to avoid unnecessary arguments that could delay proceedings.

“We didn’t seek for any assistance. We didn’t invite you,” he added.

Responding, Fagbohun explained that the proposed intervention was not adversarial but intended to assist the court in determining the appeal.

“We are not adversarial. We’re actually trying to assist this court,” he said.

Justice Senchi, however, maintained that the court would determine the matter on its merits, noting that the proposed participants were not parties to the original proceedings or the appeal.

The judge advised Fagbohun to withdraw the application so that the court could proceed with the substantive matter.

Fagbohun subsequently withdrew the application and apologised to the panel, which commended him for his decision.

Mojirayo Ogunlana, who represented the Southern African Litigation Centre, also withdrew her organisation’s application to participate as amicus curiae.

Panel faults SERAP counsel’s application

After concluding proceedings on the first appeal filed by SERAP’s Incorporated Trustees and reserving judgment, the panel turned to the separate appeal involving the organisation’s Deputy Director.

The appeal had earlier suffered an adjournment following the failure to file the required application before the previous hearing.

However, after listening to submissions by SERAP’s counsel for more than an hour, the panel expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the application had been presented.

Justice Senchi advised Oladare to seek guidance from more experienced colleagues, faulting the formulation of the prayers before the court.

“Look at the way and manner you couched your prayers. We can’t grant this. You have to withdraw and refile it,” the judge said.

He added that the application, as presented, could not be granted and that it would have to be withdrawn and filed afresh.

The judge subsequently announced that the case file would be returned for reassignment.

“We are sending this case file back for reassignment,” he declared.

The decision effectively halted further proceedings on that appeal before the panel.

Bar & Bench Watch reports that the case arose from a defamation suit in which two DSS operatives obtained a N101 million judgment against SERAP at the FCT High Court in May.

SERAP subsequently challenged the decision at the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn the judgment.

The proceedings have attracted attention because of the involvement of a prominent civil society organisation and the legal questions surrounding defamation claims, freedom of expression and the participation of third parties in appellate proceedings.

An amicus curiae, literally meaning a friend of the court, is a person or organisation permitted to assist a court by providing relevant legal arguments, expertise or information on issues arising in a case. Such participation is subject to the applicable procedural rules and the court’s discretion.

The panel’s handling of the applications underscored the importance of complying with court procedures and obtaining the necessary permission before intervening in ongoing litigation.

Tuesday’s proceedings ended with the withdrawal of the applications seeking amicus curiae status and the return of the Deputy Director’s appeal file for reassignment.