Public interest lawyer, Inibehe Effiong has provided insight into the ongoing defamation dispute involving prominent human rights lawyer, Femi Falana and social media influencer, Martins Vincent Otse, also known as VeryDarkMan.
In a statement shared on X, Effiong criticized VeryDarkMan’s approach to the controversy, noting that it revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of defamation laws.
Effiong stressed that VeryDarkMan’s personal remarks, coupled with his publication of a defamatory audio, placed him in a legally precarious position.
“Saying that you expected Femi Falana to write to Bobrisky and not you, who actually published the defamatory matter, is just a demonstration of your acute lack of knowledge of the law of libel.
“Even if you want to plead the defence of fair comment in court, your personal and highly prejudicial comments make it improbable for you to prevail. Emotion is one thing; the law is another,” Effiong stated.
The lawyer explained that defamation can still be actionable, even if names aren’t directly mentioned, as long as the content allows people to infer who the subject is.
“If reasonable and right-thinking members of society can deduce from your statement that you were referring to the claimant, and that the claimant’s estimation is lowered on account of your statement, you are liable,” Effiong said.
Naturenex recalls that this dispute began when VeryDarkMan posted an audio implicating Femi Falana’s son, Folarin Falana, widely known as Falz, in a conversation concerning Nigerian crossdresser Idris Okuneye, aka Bobrisky.
In the audio, Bobrisky claimed that after his conviction for defacing naira notes earlier this year, a high-level arrangement was made by his “godfather,” working with the Nigerian Correctional Service, allowing him to serve his sentence in a private apartment.
Furthermore, Bobrisky alleged that Falz and his father, Femi Falana, had reached out to him with an offer to secure a Federal Government pardon for ₦10 million.
Falana’s legal team quickly responded, branding VeryDarkMan’s post as “vicious, wicked, and reckless,” and demanded a public apology and retraction within 24 hours.
Effiong highlighted that VeryDarkMan’s argument—that Falana should have confronted Bobrisky—was legally unsound.
“Publication arises when what is said or written is brought to the notice of the whole world or third parties. That is what gives rise to a cause of action,” he explained.
Effiong also underscored that accusing a lawyer of corruption without substantial evidence could lead to serious legal consequences.
“If you’re going to accuse a lawyer, or anyone for that matter, of aiding a prisoner to avoid jail time or serve imprisonment outside the custodial centre, you should have solid facts to substantiate it,” he said.
In response to Falana’s legal demand, VeryDarkMan maintained his stance, claiming that he did not defame Falana but merely questioned the claims made by Bobrisky.
He said, “First of all, I did not defame Uncle Falana, and I never will. Uncle Falana, SAN, is someone I respect 100%. I respect him not just because of his position as SAN, but because of what he has used that position to achieve—representing people like me. People like me speak out against societal ills, the abuse of power and influence, and the misdeeds of the government.
“How could I ever defame him? I only responded to Bobrisky’s claim that Falz connected Uncle Falana with a ₦10 million deal. What I said was that I chose not to believe Uncle Femi Falana would be associated with such a thing, and if he was, I would be disappointed because of his standing in society and what he represents.“
