Court Dismisses VeryDarkMan's Objections in ₦1bn Defamation Lawsuit Filed by Femi Falana and Falz

VeryDarkMan (L) and Falz (R)

An Ikeja High Court has dismissed preliminary objections filed by Instagram personality Martins Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan (VDM), in a ₦1 billion defamation suit brought against him by renowned human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) and his son, musician and activist Folarin Falana (Falz).

Justice Fimisola Azeez, who presided over the matter on Tuesday, also ordered VDM to pay ₦100,000 in costs to each of the claimants, totaling ₦200,000. The court ruled that the objections lacked merit and directed the defendant to file his defence to the allegations of defamation without delay.

VDM had argued that the court lacked jurisdiction, claiming the alleged offence occurred outside Lagos State. However, the claimants countered with a written address and a supporting affidavit, urging the court to dismiss the objection and proceed with the substantive suit.

The case stems from a video posted on VDM’s Instagram page on September 24, 2024, in which he referenced an audio recording made by cross-dresser Bobrisky. In the recording, Bobrisky allegedly accused Falana and Falz of perverting the course of justice. The Falanas claim that VDM’s video contained defamatory and injurious content targeting their reputation.

During the court proceedings, Femi Falana was absent but represented by his legal team—Ernest Olawanle and Femi Akinyemi—while Falz was present in court. VDM was not in court but was represented by his counsel, Marvin Omorogbe.

The claimants are seeking ₦500 million each in damages, totaling ₦1 billion. They also want the court to declare VDM’s Instagram video as libellous, injurious, derogatory, and defamatory. In addition, they are asking for a public apology to be published on all of VDM’s social media platforms and in a national newspaper.

Furthermore, the Falanas are requesting a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant and his agents from making or publishing further defamatory statements.

In a related development, Justice Mathias Dawodu had previously struck out a pre-emptive suit filed by the claimants on April 15, stating that it would be academic and a waste of judicial time due to the existence of the substantive case before Justice Azeez.

VDM had also filed a motion for a stay of proceedings, which was subsequently struck out, allowing the main defamation trial to proceed. The court has adjourned the matter until July 8 for further mention.