Court orders VeryDarkMan to delete ‘defamatory’ posts about Falana, Falz

An Ikeja high court has issued an interim order restraining Martins Otse, an activist popularly known as  VeryDarkMan, from further circulating or publishing any defamatory video or comments about Falz, rapper and son of Femi Falana, a human rights lawyer.

Ruling on an ex parte application on Monday, M. O. Dawodu, presiding judge, also ordered VeryDarkMan to delete “defamatory comments and videos” concerning Falz and Falana from all his social media pages.

Recently, VeryDarkMan shared a purported audio conversation wherein Bobrisky, the popular crossdresser born Idris Okuneye, claimed that Falana and his son Falz contacted her while she was serving a six-month sentence for naira abuse.

In the recording, Bobrisky alleged that that Falz and his father “tried to get me a presidential pardon in exchange for N10 million”.

Bobrisky has since denied the recording and threatened to sue VeryDarkMan for defamation.

Falana and Falz also threatened to institute legal action against the activist if he fails to retract his comments and apologise.

In the affidavits attached to the application in suit ID/8584/GCM/2024, Falz said VeryDarkMan “recklessly” published the video without proper verification in order to “injure” his reputation and that of his family.

He further submitted that the said defamatory publication is still trending on the defendant’s multiple online handles and pages, and that the injury to the rapper’s reputation is continuing as long as the publication are not deleted.

In his ruling, Dawodu held that “there is no doubt that the purpose of filing this application is to preserve the res from irreversible destruction or damage before the matter is properly filed before the court.”

“The res, in this case, is the reputation of the applicant as stated in the affidavit in support of this application,” the judge said.

“From the facts in the affidavits supporting this application, the court finds that the applicant has successfully fulfilled these conditions. The applicant has a legal right to be protected from being defamed by the actions of the defendant.

“Whether this action will succeed can only be determined during the hearing of the matter. There is no doubt that the Applicant has a legal right not to be defamed and had proved the possible existence of a breach of same through the depositions in his affidavit.

“From the affidavit evidence and the documents in support thereof, it is clear that there are substantial issues to be tried in this matter; the balance of convenience seems to be in favour of the applicant, and damages might not be adequate compensation, especially moreso that the defendant might not be in good financial standing to compensate the applicant if the court finds in his favour.

“The applicant has also given an undertaking as to damages, and he is ready and willing to indemnify the defendant if this application ought not to have been granted.”

Consequently, the court ruled that “the defendant, his agents, and privies are hereby restrained from further releasing, publishing, or circulating any defamatory videos/comments about the applicant and to bring down the defamatory video/comments about the applicant published on 24th September 2024 on all his online social media handles/pages pending compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol of this honourable court”.

However, the court held that the order is only valid for 21 days.

The judge also granted the applicant leave to serve the pre-action bundles, originating processes, and all other court processes on the defendant by substituted means through his lawyer, Deji Adeyanju.