The hearing in a defamation lawsuit against social media influencer Vincent Otse, also known as VeryDarkMan, or VDM, has been postponed to January 23, 2025 by a Lagos High Court.
Human rights advocate Femi Falana and his son Folarin, also known as Falz, filed the defamation lawsuit against VDM.
According to earlier reports, the Falanas were not there when VDM appeared in court wearing red local clothing and surrounded by supporters who were applauding him.
Since the majority of the applications submitted by the parties are still not in the court file, it was determined that the matter could not move further. The hearing had to be postponed until January 23, 2025.
Remember how the Falanas had the legal right to be shielded from slander on October 14th, when Justice Matthias Dawodu ruled on their ex parte plea for an order of interim and preemptive remedy?
Additionally, the court ordered VDM to remove the allegedly defamatory video he recorded against the SAN and his son on September 24, 2025.
Until the suit filed by the elder lawyer and his son is heard, Justice Dawodu further prohibited the self-described social media police from posting, broadcasting, or disseminating any more defamatory films and remarks against them on any of his online social media accounts.
Additionally, the judge mandated that VeryDarkMan be served with all proceedings in the case through
In separate lawsuits, the Falanas had brought the defendant before the court, demanding N500 million in damages for a video he had shared on social media, in which they claimed to have obtained N10 million from Idris Okuneye, also known as Bobrisky, in order to sabotage the administration of justice.
The father and son argued in their lawsuits that the defendant intentionally damaged their reputation by publishing his remarks despite knowing they were untrue and unsubstantiated.
Additionally, they claimed that the defendant’s reputation is continuously being harmed as long as the alleged defamatory publication is still trending on their internet handles and sites.
VDM responded by requesting permission from the court to appeal the decision.
Additionally, he said that since the case raises important legal issues that require more investigation, the court’s rejection would constitute a miscarriage of justice.
“I said,” he said. “A refusal to grant leave may result in the enforcement of a decision that does not reflect a correct application of the law, leading to outcomes that may be detrimental not only to the parties involved but also to the administration of justice as a whole.
“The appellate court’s role in clarifying and, where necessary, correcting trial court decisions are vital in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.”
