Court adjourns Falana’s defamation suit against VDM (UPDATED)

VDM arrived at the court's premises around 9:30 a.m., dressed in a traditional Edo attire and supported by fans who cheered him on.

The defamation lawsuit between social media critic Martins Vincent, known as VeryDarkMan, and prominent civil rights lawyer Femi Falana, along with his son Folarin Falana, has been postponed.

The decision was made after the Thursday Lagos State High Court hearing; Ikeja failed to hold because most of the applications filed by the parties are not yet in the court file.

The court, however, adjourned the hearing to 23 January 2025.

Meanwhile, VDM arrived at the court’s premises around 9:30 a.m., dressed in red attire and supported by fans who cheered as he entered the courtroom.

However, neither Femi Falana nor Falz was present.

When the case was called on Thursday, counsel to Falana and Falz, Muiz Banire (SAN), informed the court that the claimants had filed the originating process and served to the parties.

Mr Banire also said a motion on notice was served on 25 October, but Justice Matthias Dawodu said the originating process was not before the court.

The claimant’s counsel, however, prayed the court to adjourn the case so that he could file administrative processes.

“In this circumstance, my lord, the best thing to do is to adjourn the matter so that we can go back to the registry to file all the administrative processes,” Mr Banire said.

In his response, counsel to VDM, Marvin Omorogbe, said it had been observed that there was no valid writ of summon before the court.

He, therefore, prayed the court to strike out the lawsuit.

Proceeding

Mr Omorogbe said he did not know how the court’s registry would prepare any administrative process.

He said the writ already filed was invalid as it was not before the court.

He says the writ bears the same suit number as the preemptive remedy proceedings.

He said, “Preemptive remedy proceedings end after an injunction is granted or refused. They have filed a writ using the same suit number as the preemptive remedy proceedings.

The court said no that a fresh writ of summons with a new suit number needs to be filed. At this point, my lord, we will be seeking a date to hear our preliminary objection. “

Mr Omorogbe further urged the court to withdraw a motion dated 18 October.

He said the motion was a move to appeal because the claimants had admitted an issue regarding the preemptive proceedings.

Justice Dawodu, however, struck out the motion, following no objections from the claimant’s counsel.

“I will give you a date for a hearing because we are talking about a writ that is not before the court,” Dawodu said.

The judge adjourned the case until 23 January 2025 for a hearing of the preliminary objections.

Backstory

In September, PREMIUM TIMES reported that VDM posted a leaked audio clip of Bobrisky on his Instagram page, in which the crossdresser implicated Falz and his father.

Bobrisky, whose real name is Idris Okuneye, alleged that while imprisoned at the Kirikiri Correctional Centre, Falz and his father contacted him to facilitate a ‘presidential pardon’ for a fee of N10 million.

However, Mr Falana and his son denied the allegation and demanded that VDM issue an apology and retract his statement, which they described as ‘defamatory’, within 24 hours.

When the social media influencer failed to retract the statement or apologise, the Lagos State High Court ordered VDM to delete the defamatory comments and videos he made about Mr Falana and his son in September.

Justice M.O. Dawodu issued the order in response to Mr Falana’s preliminary application for preemptive measures to restrain VDM from further defaming him and his son.

The order followed Mr Falana’s ex parte originating application filed on 9 October.

In the ex parte application, heard by the judge on 10 October, Mr Falana sought various preemptive orders against VDM ahead of the substantive suit’s hearing.

He also requested permission to serve VDM through substituted means, such as serving the suit on his lawyer.

The Falanas filed separate lawsuits against the defendant, each seeking N500 million in damages for a video he shared on social media.

The video accused them of accepting N10 million from Idris Okuneye, also known as Bobrisky, to obstruct justice.

Defamation lawsuit

In their suits, the father and son argued that the defendant’s statements were baseless and defamatory, intended solely to harm their reputations. They further noted that the post remains accessible on his social media, causing ongoing damage to their image.

This newspaper reported that since VDM leaked the audio, there has been widespread public debate and ongoing developments.

The growing concerns triggered investigations by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), whose agents were allegedly bribed with N15 million to drop money laundering charges against Bobrisky, and the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS), which was accused of accepting bribes to grant Bobrisky VIP custody instead of regular prison treatment.

A report from the panel set up by the Minister of Interior, Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, to investigate alleged breaches of standard operating procedures within the NCoS revealed that Bobrisky lived outside the Correctional Service Centre during his six-month imprisonment.

Additionally, the House of Representatives launched an investigation into the allegations.