An Ikeja high court has issued an interim order restraining the activist and social media influencer Martins Otse 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.
M. O. Dawodu, presiding judge, ruling on an exparte application on Monday ordered VeryDarkMan to delete defamatory comments and videos” concerning Falz and his father Mr. Femi Falana from all his social media pages.
VeryDarkMan had recently shared an audio conversation wherein Idris Okuneye, the popular crossdresser known as Bobrisky claimed that Mr.Falana and his son Falz contacted her while she was serving a six-month sentence for naira abuse.
In the recording, Bobrisky alleged that Falz and his father tried to get him a presidential pardon in exchange for N10 million.
Bobrisky had denied the recording and threatened to sue VeryDarkMan for defamation. According to them, VeryDarkMan “recklessly” published the video without proper verification in order to “injure” his reputation and that of his family.
Mr. Femi Falana and Falz also threatened to institute legal action against the activist if he fails to take back his comments and apologise.
According to them, VeryDarkMan “recklessly” published the video without proper verification in order to “injure” his reputation and that of his family.
He assented that the said defamatory publication is still trending on the defendant’s multiple social media handles and pages, and that the injury to the singer/actor’s reputation is continuing as long as the publications are still there.
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.”
“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” the judge said.
Whether the action will triumph 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.
The court held that the order is only valid for the period of 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.
“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 also 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”.
