The Lagos State High Court in Ikeja has adjourned proceedings in a high-profile N1 billion defamation case involving renowned human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), and his son, rapper and activist Folarin Falana, popularly known as Falz.
The suit, filed against Abuja-based social media influencer, Martins Otse, alias VeryDarkBlackMan, has been rescheduled for hearing on February 19, 2025.
At the heart of the dispute is an allegation that Otse falsely claimed the Falanas received N10 million from popular crossdresser, Idris Okuneye, a.k.a. Bobrisky, to influence the course of justice.
The plaintiffs are seeking N500 million each in damages, as well as a public apology across Otse’s social media platforms and in a national newspaper.
The adjournment came after the defendant’s lawyer, Marvin Omorogbe, raised a preliminary objection challenging the court’s jurisdiction. Omorogbe argued that since the defendant resides and operates in Abuja, where the alleged defamatory publication was made, the Lagos court lacks territorial jurisdiction to hear the case.
In response, Justice Matthias Dawodu postponed the case to allow the defendant time to address a counter-affidavit filed by the plaintiffs.
This case, which has drawn significant public interest, also saw the court earlier order Otse to take down the alleged defamatory video and refrain from publishing further defamatory content about the Falanas.
The judge further directed that court documents be served on the defendant through his legal representative, Deji Adeyanju.
Omorogbe accused the Falanas of “forum shopping,” alleging that they filed the case in Lagos instead of Abuja to secure a favorable ruling. He described the move as an abuse of the court process.
However, the Falanas remain firm in their claims, stating that the defendant knowingly published false and harmful allegations to tarnish their reputation.
“His comments were baseless, reckless, and aimed at causing damage to our credibility,” they argued in court filings.
With the next hearing set for February 2025, the case underscores the growing tension between public figures and social media influencers over the limits of free speech and accountability online.
