Social media critic Martins Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan, has applied to the Lagos State High Court for permission to appeal the ruling delivered on October 14, 2024, by Justice M.O. Dawodu in favor of human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN) and his son, Folarin Falana, also known as Falz, regarding an alleged defamation case.
The Falanas filed a lawsuit against VeryDarkMan, demanding a retraction of allegedly defamatory statements made against them in a conversation involving popular cross-dresser Idris Okuneye, known as Bobrisky, concerning financial support and legal intervention when Bobrisky faced detention for naira abuse.
According to a letter dated September 26, 2024, signed by Taiwo Olawanle and shared on Falz’s Instagram, Falana’s legal team addressed VeryDarkMan, the originator of social media posts alleging that Falz was part of a plan to secure a presidential pardon for Bobrisky.
The letter clarified that Bobrisky had allegedly requested N3 million from Falz to pay correctional center officials for VIP treatment during his detention.
In her October 14 ruling, Justice Dawodu ordered VeryDarkMan and his associates to remove the allegedly defamatory video and comments about the Falanas, published on September 24, 2024, from all social media platforms, pending compliance with the court’s pre-action protocol.
The court also restrained him from further publishing or circulating defamatory content about the Falanas.
In response, VeryDarkMan, through motions on notice obtained by The PUNCH on Monday, filed two cases—marked ID/8584/GCM/2024 (between him and Falz) and ID/8586/GCM/2024 (with Femi Falana as the sole respondent)—requesting an extension of time to seek the court’s permission to appeal the ruling.
In his October 18 motion, based on seven grounds, VeryDarkMan argued that “the court order was based solely on the respondent’s affidavit,” suggesting the need for appellate review. He stated that as the order was interlocutory, court approval was required to exercise his constitutional right to appeal.
He argued that “it is at the court’s discretion to grant or refuse leave to appeal, but such discretion should be exercised judicially and judiciously,” adding that denying him this right would lead to a miscarriage of justice, as significant legal questions in the case merit further review.
VeryDarkMan asserted, “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 is vital in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.”
In an affidavit by legal practitioner Oladimeji Joseph, it was noted that Joseph was aware of the court’s findings, specifically regarding VeryDarkMan’s alleged inability to compensate the Falanas should the judgment go against him.
Joseph emphasized the need to appeal the ruling and stated, “I know for a fact that leave from this Honourable Court must be obtained before the Defendant can appeal against the ruling. The Defendant has 14 days from the date of the ruling within which he must seek the leave of this Honourable Court and file an appeal.”
Joseph urged the court to grant the applicant’s request, allowing VeryDarkMan to appeal the decision.