Very Dark Man (VDM), the self-proclaimed activist known for his controversial exposés, has landed in hot water after defying a court order to retract and delete defamatory statements he made about Femi Falana, SAN, and his son, Falz.

The High Court in Lagos State issued the order on October 15, 2024, but a month later, VDM has refused to comply.

VDM, whose real name is Martins Vincent Otse, sparked the legal battle after he cast aspersions on the Falanas following allegations made by Nigerian transwoman Bobrisky in September 2024.

In a leaked voice note, Bobrisky claimed EFCC officers collected ₦15 million to drop money laundering charges against him, with the assistance of a Senior Advocate of Nigeria and his son.

While no names were mentioned, VDM suggested Falana and Falz were involved.

The accusations, which VDM shared on his social media, prompted backlash and ultimately a lawsuit from the Falanas.

Legal experts, including Kemi Afesojaye, MCIArb, highlighted that publicising such claims without evidence constitutes defamation, which is illegal.

According to Afesojaye, “a reported statement can also be viewed as defamatory because of the element of publicisation.”

The court ruled that VDM’s comments were “defamatory and injurious” to the public reputations of Falana and Falz, ordering him to take down the video and issue a retraction.

However, VDM has stood his ground, insisting, “I don’t see anything wrong with what I did, so I’m not apologising to anybody.”

“They should clear their name.”

Critics argue that VDM’s defiance undermines the rule of law, with many calling for him to be held in contempt of court.

Social media users have expressed outrage over his refusal to comply, tagging him as “self-serving,” “manipulative,” and “narcissistic.”

The fallout from the case has also affected Falz’s public image.

His Instagram comment section has become a battleground, with users labeling him an “oppressor” and other negative terms—a stark change from before VDM’s post.

This controversy has shifted focus away from the corruption VDM aimed to expose.

Observers believe his refusal to obey the court order is driven by ego rather than activism.

As one critic put it, “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.”

While VDM maintains his innocence, his actions raise questions about whether he can pick and choose when to obey the law.

For now, the court order remains unmet, leaving the public divided and the issue far from resolved.