The Lagos High Court in Ikeja has postponed till February 19 the defamation lawsuit against Martins Otse, commonly known as VeryDarkMan (VDM), which was brought by human rights attorney Femi Falana (SAN) and his son Folarin, also known as Falz.
In a preliminary objection, VDM’s attorney, Marvin Omorogbe, contested the action brought by the Falanas’ competency and the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. Justice Matthias Dawodu set the hearing date for Thursday.
Although VeryDarkMan and the Falanas did not appear in court, their solicitors did represent them.
During the reopening of proceedings, VeryDarkMan’s counsel, Omorogbe, informed the court that he required time to react to the counter-affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs, the Falanas, against his preliminary objection.
The Falanas’ attorney, Omotade Omotunbosun, did not raise any objections to the adjournment request.
After that, Justice Dawodu postponed the case until February 19 for a hearing.
VeryDarkMan was brought before the court by the Falanas, who demanded ₦500 million in damages from him over a video he shared on social media, claiming that they had obtained ₦10 million from Idris Okuneye, also known as Bobrisky, to sabotage the legal process.
On October 14, 2024, Justice Dawodu gave the self-described social media police an order to remove the video, which the senior attorney and his son claimed contained extremely offensive remarks about them.
Until the claim filed by the older lawyer and his son is heard, the judge has further ordered the defendant to refrain from releasing, publishing, or disseminating any more defamatory recordings and remarks against them on any of his online social media accounts.
Additionally, the judge mandated that VeryDarkMan be served with all of the proceedings via his attorney, Deji Adeyanju.
According to the terms of Order 4 Rule 1(4) of the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2019, VeryDarkMan contended in the application—through his attorney—that the court lacks the territorial authority to consider this case.
Omorogbe further argued that the alleged defamatory publication was made in Abuja and that the defendant works and resides in Abuja, which is outside the court’s jurisdiction.
He further asserted that the claimants purposefully used forum shopping to bring the lawsuit before the court in the hopes of receiving a positive ruling.
The father and son claimed in their lawsuits that the defendants knew all of his remarks were untrue and unconfirmed, yet he nonetheless published them in an attempt to deliberately damage their reputation.
Additionally, they claimed that the defendant’s reputation is being harmed as long as the alleged defamatory publication is still trending on their online handles and sites.
The applicants claimed that in the “unverified audio recording of a one-sided narrative by the alleged Bobrisky,” the defendant carelessly claimed that Femi Falana had received ₦10 million from Bobrisky, even though the alleged Bobrisky never said that the claimants/applicants had received ₦10 million from him.
Verydarkman had said in the video that he “did not expect the claimant, a lawyer to the late Fela Anikulapo Kuti, whom everyone respects, to engage in something like this.”
He added that Bobrisky was told by the claimant that he could obtain a presidential pardon for Bobrisky in return for ₦10,000,000.00 (ten million naira only).
Therefore, the Falanas are requesting a declaration that the defendant’s September 24, 2024, post on his Instagram account, @verydarkblackman, in which he singled out the claimant, is libellous, slanderous, defamatory, scandalous, and libellous.
“The sum of ₦500,000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira Only) for defamation of character contained in the defendant’s video publication of September 24, 2024, on his Instagram handle @verydarkblackman.
“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents or servants, or otherwise from further publishing or causing to be published the said or similar words defamatory to the claimant.
“An order directing the defendant to publish an apology to the claimant on all his social media handles/pages for the defamatory words contained in the video complained of and in one National Daily Newspaper.”
“A perpetual injunction prohibiting the defendant, his representatives, or servants, or in any other way, from publishing or causing to be published the aforementioned or comparable words that are defamatory to the claimant.
“An order requiring the defendant to apologise to the claimant on all of his social media accounts and sites for the offensive language in the National Daily Newspaper and the video that was the subject of the complaint.”
