By Kayode Lawal
A witness of the Socio-economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), Kolawole Oluwadare on Monday admitted at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory that he used some harsh words like “unlawful, invasion, intimidation and harrassment” in some publications made against the Department of the State Service (DSS).
The witness who also admitted that SERAP has both local and international fund donors admitted using the words in the publications based on information supplied to him by one Vivian Amadi, a front Desk officer and receptionist with the organization.
Oluwadare admitted using the words while being crossed examined by Oluwagbemileke Samuel Kehinde in a N5.5bn defamation suit instituted against SERAP by two operatives of the DSS, Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele.
The witness said the publications were based on the presence of two DSS officers in SERAP office on September 9, 2024.
He said that he was not in the office when Vivian Amadi called him to inform him of the presence of the DSS officers in the compound of his organization.
Oluwadare who was taken through two exhibits, publications made by him against DSS read out the first paragraph of one of the publications where the alleged harsh words were used based on information supplied him.
In the publication posted on SERAP website, he raised an alarm that DSS had invaded SERAP office unlawfully, intimidating and harassing its staff and called on President Bola Tinubu to call DSS officers to order.
He however disagreed that the words used in the publications are serious allegations against the two claimants.
The witness also admitted that he did not consult DSS before posting the publications on the website of SERAP.
He admitted that throughout the presence of the two DSS officers in the SERAP office, no property of the organization was seized or damaged and that no staff was physically assaulted by the security agents.
Answering a question, the SERAP witness said the DSS officers did not break any door to gain entrance into the organization’s office.
He also said the security agents did not brandize any weapon but that the first claimant (Sarah John) was making calls asking other officers not to come inside SERAP office but to take their position.
He said that he had the CCTV footage of the DSS officers entrance into the organization’s office.
The witness had earlier adopted his witness statement made on oath during his evidence in chief where he was led by lawyer Oluwatosin Adesioye.
Meanwhile, Justice Halilu Yusuf has fixed February 19, 2026 for adoption of final addresses by parties in the suit.
In the suit, marked: CV/4547/2024, filed in the names of two officials of DSS – Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele – the claimants accused the defendants of making false claim that John and Ogundele invaded SERAP’s Abuja office.
The claimant stated among others, that the alleged false claim by SERAP has negatively impacted on its reputation and that of the two officials involved.
They also stated, in their statement of claim, that, in line with its practice of engaging with officials of non governmental organisations operating in the FCT to establish a relationship with their new leadership, it directed the two officials – John and Ogunleye – to visit SERAP’s office and invite its new leadership for a familiarisation meeting.
The claimants added that in carrying out the directive, John and Ogunleye paid a friendly visit to SERAP’s office at 18 Bamako Street, Wuse Zone 1, Abuja on September 9 and met with one Ruth, who upon being informed about the purpose of the visit, claimed that none of SERAP’s management staff was in the country and advised that a formal letter of invitation be written by the DSS.
John and Ogundele, who claimed that their interactions with Ruth were recorded, said before they immediately exited SERAP’s office, Ruth promised to inform her organisation’s management about the visit and volunteered a phone number – 08160537202.
They said it was surprising that, shortly after their visit, SERAP posted on its X (Twitter) handle: @SERAPNigeria, that officers of the DSS are presently unlawfully occupying its office.
The claimant added that “on the same day, the defendants also published a statement on SERAP’s website, which was widely reported by several media outfits, falsely alleging that some officers from the DSS, described as “a fall, large, dark-skinned woman” and “a slim, dark skinned man,” invaded their Abuja office and interrogated the staff of the first defendant (SERAP).
John and Ogundele stated that “due to the false statements published by the defendants, the DSS has been ridiculed and criticised by international agencies such as the Amnesty International and prominent members of the Nigerian society, such as Femi Falana (SAN).
“Due to the false statements published by the defendants, members of the public and the international community formed the opinion that the Federal Government is using the DSS to harass the defendants.”
They added that the defendants’ statements caused harm to the claimants’ reputation because the staff and management of the DSS have formed the opinion that the claimants did not follow orders and carried out an unsanctioned operation and are therefore, incompetent and unprofessional.
The claimants are therefore praying the court for the following reliefs:
*An order directing the defendants to tender an apology to the claimants via the first defendant’s (SERAP’s) website, X (twitter) handle, two national daily newspapers (Punch and Vanguard) and two national news television stations (Arise Television and Channels Television) for falsely accusing the claimants of unlawfully invading the first defendant’s office and interrogating the first defendant’s staff.
*An order directing the defendants to pay the claimants the sum of N5billion as damages for the libellous statements published about the claimants.
*Interest on the sum of N5b at the rate of 10 percent per annum from the date of judgment until the judgment sum is realised or liquidated.
*An order directing the defendants to pay the claimants the sum of N50million as costs of this action.
