An Ikeja high court has granted an interim order prohibiting Martins Otse, an activist known as VeryDarkMan, from disseminating or publishing any defamatory videos or remarks regarding Falz, the rapper and son of human rights lawyer Femi Falana.

In a ruling on an ex parte application on Monday, presiding judge M. O. Dawodu also mandated VeryDarkMan to remove all “defamatory comments and videos” related to Falz and Falana from his social media accounts.

Recently, VeryDarkMan released a purported audio recording in which Bobrisky, the well-known crossdresser born Idris Okuneye, alleged that Falana and his son Falz reached out to her during her six-month sentence for naira abuse.

In the audio, Bobrisky claimed that Falz and his father “attempted to secure me a presidential pardon in exchange for N10 million.”

Bobrisky has since refuted the claims made in the recording and has threatened to take legal action against VeryDarkMan for defamation.

Both Falana and Falz have also indicated their intention to pursue legal action against the activist if he does not retract his statements and issue an apology.

In the affidavits submitted with the application in case ID/8584/GCM/2024, Falz asserted that VeryDarkMan “recklessly” published the video without adequate verification, intending to “harm” his reputation and that of his family.

He further noted that the defamatory content continues to circulate on the defendant’s various online platforms, and the damage to the rapper’s reputation persists as long as the material remains online.

In his ruling, Dawodu stated that “there is no doubt that the purpose of filing this application is to protect the res from irreversible destruction or damage before the matter is formally presented to the court.”

“The res, in this case, is the reputation of the applicant as stated in the affidavit in support of this application,” the judge said.

“From the facts in the affidavits supporting this application, the court finds that the applicant has successfully fulfilled these conditions. The applicant has a legal right to be protected from being defamed by the actions of the defendant.

“Whether this action will succeed can only be determined during the hearing of the matter. There is no doubt that the Applicant has a legal right not to be defamed and had proved the possible existence of a breach of same through the depositions in his affidavit.

“From the affidavit evidence and the documents in support thereof, it is clear that there are substantial issues to be tried in this matter; the balance of convenience seems to be in favour of the applicant, and damages might not be adequate compensation, especially moreso that the defendant might not be in good financial standing to compensate the applicant if the court finds in his favour.

“The applicant has also given an undertaking as to damages, and he is ready and willing to indemnify the defendant if this application ought not to have been granted.”

The court has determined that "the defendant, along with his agents and associates, is hereby prohibited from further releasing, publishing, or disseminating any defamatory videos or comments regarding the applicant. Additionally, the defendant is required to remove the defamatory video and comments about the applicant that were published on September 24, 2024, from all his online social media accounts, pending adherence to the Pre-Action Protocol of this esteemed court."

It is important to note that this order is effective for a period of 21 days.

Furthermore, the judge has permitted the applicant to serve the pre-action bundles, originating processes, and all other court documents to the defendant through alternative means via his attorney, Deji Adeyanju.