VDM is an ‘activist’ but doesn’t respect the rule of law? Don’t make me laugh [Opinion]

By now, we all know that the reason Verydarkman (VDM) has been all over your timeline is because of his exposé against Nigerian transwoman Bobrisky—a scathing one at that, back in September 2024, in which Bobrisky, in a voice note, alleged that some unnamed EFCC officers collected ₦15 million from him to drop money laundering charges against him.

Bobrisky also alleged that a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and his son assisted in getting the charges dropped and keeping him out of prison. Very Dark Man then cast aspersions on Falz and his father, Femi Falana, a renowned SAN, regarding their role in helping Bobrisky and was promptly sued by the Falanas.

As an activist, he’s undoubtedly allowed to expose anyone he has proof against, but to get maximum effect, he’s supposed to work within the confines of the law. Defaming people is very much illegal; last time we checked.

At the time this happened, his fans and supporters took to the internet with think pieces about how the Falanas “should’ve focused their attention on Bobrisky, because he was the one in the voice notes,” calling them ‘oppressors’ and other names, completely forgetting that Bobrisky was not the one who put the voice note out there.

Kemi Afesojaye, MCIArb, and Managing Partner of Wey Practice, explained that a reported statement can also be viewed as defamatory because of the element of publicisation.

Based on this, VDM is liable because he publicised false statements to his social media followers (third parties). Those statements also caused right-thinking members of society to think negatively of Falz and his father, ergo defamation, which is illegal and why he’s the one in this mess, not Bobrisky.

As of the time of this report, exactly a month later (November 15, 2024), he still has not obeyed the Court of Law. His actions are baffling, to say the least.

The whole case now seems like a huge ego trip as VDM constantly reiterates his belief that he ‘did nothing wrong’.

In his words, “Sadly, some people, Falana and Falz, whose names were mentioned in the audio, said I should have informed them before posting such things about them. They asked me to apologise. I don’t see anything wrong with what I did, so I’m not apologising to anybody. They should clear their name.”

One thing VDM and his followers forget is that the court does not deal with emotions; as much as we wish they would, they don’t. Two things can be true at once: he can expose someone and defame another at the same time. And for defying a court order, which is absolutely ridiculous, he should be held in contempt of court if the court is serious.

You may be a fan of VDM and that’s okay, but put your emotions aside and ponder the issue critically. He says he “does not see” anything wrong with what he did, but he did something wrong. Because he can’t see it doesn’t mean the damage was not done.

A simple look at Falz’s Instagram comment section would show damage; on every post since this began, there’s at least one person calling him an oppressor or something else regarding this defamation case. That was not the case before and is a literal example of damage to his reputation because of VDM, which is an element of what? That’s right, defamation!

VDM’s blatant refusal to delete the defamatory post and defiance of the Court of Law has become a trending topic across social media, leaving many Nigerians outraged, with many tagging him as self-serving, manipulative, and narcissistic, among many other words.

This whole thing could have ended ages ago if VDM put his ego aside and did what he was supposed to do when he was initially served a retraction order by Falz; he should have taken the post down. He could have simply reposted the video without his defamatory remarks and moved on with his day, but no, his saviour complex won’t let him get off his high horse.

Having unwittingly diverted attention from the corruption he wanted so badly exposed, he’s made everything about himself. Typical.

VDM has made one thing abundantly clear: he intends to keep pulling stunts like this, and that just makes this writer wonder: does he get to pick and choose when to obey the law?