*Fault CDHR For Demanding Immediate Compliance, As Akinnola Accuses Rights Body Of Betraying Civil Society By Siding With Security Agency
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
Senior Advocate of Nigeria Femi Falana and activist Professor Chidi Odinkalu have thrown their weight behind the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project in its ongoing legal battle with the Department of State Services, dismissing calls by a faction of the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights that SERAP should immediately comply with a Federal High Court judgment ordering it to pay N100 million in damages to two DSS officials, with Falana stating that “filing an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance does not amount to disobedience of court orders” and Odinkalu accusing CDHR President Debo Adeniran of selective outrage for never demanding government agencies obey judgments SERAP secured against them.
Their interventions come amid a growing rift within Nigeria’s human rights community triggered by veteran journalist and activist Richard Akinnola, who accused the CDHR faction of hypocrisy and betrayal, stating that he “never knew a day like this would come when notable activists who had been in the struggle over the years would be publicly supporting a security agency against a member of their constituency.”
The controversy centres on the judgment delivered by Justice Halilu Yusuf of the Federal High Court in Abuja, which ordered SERAP to pay N100 million in damages to DSS officials Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele in a defamation case, alongside a public apology to be published across multiple media platforms. SERAP has indicated its intention to appeal the judgment.
The CDHR Statement That Started It
Following the judgment and the public debate it generated, the CDHR urged SERAP to comply immediately with the court’s order, stating that while criticism of court decisions is permitted, it must be exercised “with restraint and respect for due process.”
The statement appeared to place the CDHR, historically one of Nigeria’s most prominent pro-democracy and human rights organisations, on the side of the DSS against a civil society organisation in a defamation dispute, a positioning that provoked sharp criticism from within the human rights community.
Akinnola: “A Day I Never Thought Would Come”
Akinnola was the first to publicly challenge the CDHR’s stance, describing it as a betrayal of the civil society movement’s foundational principles.
“I never knew a day like this would come when notable activists who had been in the struggle over the years would be publicly supporting a security agency against a member of their constituency,” Akinnola stated.
He said the CDHR’s call raised “more questions about their intentions” than it answered, questioning why the organisation was insisting on immediate compliance when SERAP had already indicated its intention to appeal.
“Why the sudden interest in asking SERAP to immediately comply with the judgment while ignoring similar or larger issues involving the government?” Akinnola asked.
He referenced historical legal precedents to support SERAP’s right to appeal before complying, including defamation cases involving the late human rights lawyer Chief Gani Fawehinmi SAN, in which judgments were appealed before damages were enforced.
The question Akinnola posed was pointed: if the CDHR has not previously demanded that government agencies immediately comply with judgments secured against them by SERAP and other civil society organisations, many of which remain unenforced years after they were delivered, why is the organisation demanding that SERAP immediately comply with a judgment secured by DSS officers?
Falana: “An Aggrieved Party Has The Unquestionable Right To Appeal”
Falana, Nigeria’s most prominent human rights lawyer and himself a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, responded to the controversy by faulting the CDHR’s position directly.
“Contrary to your curious position, filing an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance 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.
The use of the word “curious” to describe the CDHR’s position is significant coming from Falana, who has worked alongside CDHR members for decades in the human rights movement. The characterisation suggests he finds the CDHR’s stance not merely wrong but inexplicable, requiring an explanation that the organisation has not provided.
Falana cited the precedent of his late mentor and colleague, Chief Gani Fawehinmi SAN, to illustrate the principle.
“The late Chief Gani Fawehinmi SAN never paid the N6 million damages awarded against him in a defamation case involving senior military officers. Gani repudiated the judgment and exercised his constitutional right of appeal, which he eventually won,” Falana stated.
The Fawehinmi precedent is particularly powerful in this context. Fawehinmi, who died in 2009, is regarded as the godfather of Nigeria’s human rights movement and the most courageous lawyer of his generation. Many of those currently active in the CDHR trace their activism to Fawehinmi’s example and legacy. For Falana to invoke Fawehinmi’s name in defence of SERAP’s right to appeal is to remind the CDHR of the principles that its founders fought for.
Falana also dismissed suggestions that SERAP should be compelled to pay the damages before exhausting its legal options, reinforcing the constitutional principle that the right of appeal is not conditional on prior compliance with the judgment being challenged.
Odinkalu: “Senior Advocate For DSS Officers”
Odinkalu, the former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission and one of Nigeria’s most respected public intellectuals on governance and human rights, delivered the most personal critique, targeting CDHR President and Secretary of the Board of Trustees Debo Adeniran directly.
Odinkalu accused Adeniran of inconsistency, alleging that the CDHR had failed in the past to demand enforcement of court judgments that SERAP had secured against government agencies.
“I never read nor did I ever hear Debo Adeniran ever issue a statement asking the Nigerian government or any of its agencies to obey court orders secured against them by SERAP,” Odinkalu stated.
He contrasted that silence with the CDHR’s current urgency: “Today, Debo is senior advocate for two officers of the DSS, clearly on a mission to SLAPP around with SERAP.”
The reference to “SLAPP” — Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation — is a legal term describing lawsuits designed not to win on the merits but to silence critics through the financial and emotional burden of litigation. By characterising the DSS defamation suit as a SLAPP action, Odinkalu is arguing that the lawsuit is less about genuine reputational harm to the two officers and more about punishing SERAP for its advocacy and deterring future criticism of the security services.
Odinkalu concluded with a broader observation about what the episode reveals about Nigeria’s civil society: “This too will unravel. But meanwhile, this ‘democracy’ is good for what it keeps revealing about things and people we were inclined to take for granted.”
The comment suggests that the CDHR’s stance has exposed fault lines within the human rights community that were previously hidden, revealing that some organisations and individuals who present themselves as defenders of civil liberties may have interests or allegiances that diverge from the movement’s stated principles when tested by specific controversies.
The underlying judgment by Justice Halilu Yusuf ordered SERAP to pay N100 million in damages to DSS officials Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele for defamation, along with a public apology to be published across multiple media platforms.
The specifics of what SERAP published about the two officers that the court found defamatory have been at the centre of public debate. SERAP has previously stated that there is “a consistent pattern of using legal process for unlawful activities” by the DSS, and has characterised the judgment as an attempt to silence civil society criticism of security agencies.
The N100 million award is substantial by Nigerian defamation standards and, if enforced, could significantly impact SERAP’s operations and financial capacity. This has led commentators to describe the judgment as having a potentially “chilling effect” on civil society organisations that monitor and critique government agencies, particularly security services.
At the heart of the legal controversy is a straightforward constitutional principle that Falana articulated clearly: a party dissatisfied with a judgment has the right to appeal, and the filing of an appeal is not an act of disobedience against the court that delivered the judgment.
The Nigerian Constitution guarantees the right of appeal from decisions of the Federal High Court to the Court of Appeal, and from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. This right is not subject to prior compliance with the judgment being challenged, though the appellant may need to seek a stay of execution to prevent enforcement while the appeal is pending.
SERAP has indicated its intention to appeal. If it does, the Court of Appeal will review the judgment on its merits, the evidence presented, the legal principles applied, and the quantum of damages awarded. Until the appellate process is exhausted, the judgment remains subject to reversal.
The CDHR’s call for immediate compliance effectively asked SERAP to pay N100 million and publish a public apology before the appellate courts have had the opportunity to determine whether the judgment is correct. This is the position that Falana, Odinkalu, and Akinnola have rejected as contrary to the principles of justice and the constitutional right of appeal.
The controversy reveals a deeper split within Nigeria’s civil society movement that extends beyond the specific SERAP-DSS dispute.
On one side are those who maintain that civil society organisations must support each other against government agencies, that the right to criticise security services is fundamental to democratic accountability, and that court judgments obtained by security agencies against advocacy organisations should be scrutinised for their potential chilling effect on free expression.
On the other side, as represented by the CDHR faction, is the argument that respect for court judgments must be universal, that civil society organisations cannot demand government compliance with court orders while refusing to comply themselves, and that the rule of law requires acceptance of unfavourable judgments as much as celebration of favourable ones.
The tension between these positions is real and principled. However, as Akinnola and Odinkalu have pointed out, the CDHR’s credibility in advancing the second argument is undermined by its silence when government agencies routinely disobey court orders secured by SERAP and other organisations, a silence that makes the current demand for compliance appear selective rather than principled.
SERAP is expected to file its appeal against the N100 million judgment and seek a stay of execution to prevent enforcement while the appeal is pending.
The appellate process will determine whether the Federal High Court’s judgment, including the quantum of damages and the requirement for a published apology, is legally sound or whether it will be set aside on grounds that may include disproportionate damages, the chilling effect on free expression, or errors in the application of defamation law.
For Nigeria’s human rights community, the episode has exposed divisions that may take longer to heal than the legal case takes to resolve. When organisations that once stood together against military dictatorship and fought for the democratic freedoms that all Nigerians now enjoy find themselves on opposite sides of a dispute between a civil society watchdog and a security agency, the unity that gave the movement its moral authority is strained.
As Odinkalu observed: “This ‘democracy’ is good for what it keeps revealing about things and people we were inclined to take for granted.”
The appeal will be filed. The courts will decide. And the human rights community will confront the question of whether the solidarity that sustained it through decades of struggle can survive the pressures of the democratic era it helped create.
[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation
______________________________________________________________________
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR LAWYERS: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE
Reimagine your practice with the power of AI “...this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic.” — Ohio Books Ltd
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe, Esq., ACIArb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director, Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
Bonus:
Get a FREE eBook titled “How to Use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion” with every purchase.
How to Order: 📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878 📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com 🌐 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access directly online at: https://selar.com/prv626
______________________________________________________________________ “Bridging Theory And Courtroom Practice” — Hagler Sunny Okorie, Nathaniel Ngozi Ikeocha Unveil ‘Functional’ Tort Law Book For Nigerian Legal System
The book, titled The Law of Torts in Nigeria: A Functional Approach, authored by Professor Hagler Sunny Okorie Ph.D and Ikeocha, Nathaniel Ngozi Esq, offers law students, practitioners, and academics a comprehensive guide to understanding and applying tort law in Nigerian courts. Interested buyers can place orders via the following contact numbers: 08028636615, 08037667945, 08032253813, or +234 902 196 2209.
______________________________________________________________________
“Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
