VeryDarkMan appeals court’s order in Falz, Falana’s ‘defamation suit’

VeryDarkMan, the controversial activist, has filed an appeal with the Lagos high court, challenging the October 14 order in the “defamation case” involving the Falana family.

VeryDarkMan recently shared a purported audio conversation wherein the crossdresser Bobrisky claimed Femi Falana, the human rights lawyer, and his son Falz contacted her while she was serving a six-month sentence for naira abuse.

In the recording, Bobrisky alleged that Falz and his father “tried to get me a presidential pardon in exchange for N10 million”.

However, the crossdresser denied the recording’s authenticity and threatened to sue VeryDarkMan for alleged defamation.

The Falana family also demanded a retraction and apology, threatening legal action.

Matthias Dawodu, the presiding judge, had ordered the self-proclaimed social media police to delete “defamatory comments and videos” concerning Falz and Falana from all his social media pages.

The judge also ordered the activist to desist from further releasing, publishing, or circulating any defamatory videos and comments against the Falana family.

In response, VeryDarkMan filed two separate motions with the court, requesting an extension of time to secure permission to appeal the ruling.

In the motion, based on seven grounds and dated October 18, VeryDarkMan argued that the court order relied solely on the respondent’s affidavit. He said refusing his “request would constitute legal injustice”.

The activist also argued that while “it is at the court’s discretion to grant or refuse leave to appeal, such discretion should be exercised judicially and judiciously”.

“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,” he said.

“The appellate court’s role in clarifying and, where necessary, correcting trial court decisions is vital in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.”