NIGERIAN rapper and activist Folarin Falana, widely known as Falz, has responded to recent accusations made by social media influencer Martins Otse, also known as Verydarkman, asserting that the claims against him are unfounded and defamatory.
In an appearance on The Afro Beat Podcast, released yesterday via YouTube. Falz admitted that he had limited knowledge of Verydarkman’s activism prior to the controversy. “I don’t know much of it. I’ll be honest with you,” he said, noting that he had seen some of the influencer’s earlier content, particularly concerning the sale of unregulated bleaching products. “When I saw some of those clips, I thought, okay, this person seems to be doing something right. This is a good cause,” he added.
The dispute ignited when Verydarkman made serious allegations, claiming that Falz and his father, Femi Falana, had conspired with certain individuals to distort justice.
Falz stated that Verydarkman accused him of having a homosexual relationship with the well-known crossdresser Bobrisky, thereby questioning his credibility as an activist.
Addressing these allegations, Falz expressed his disbelief, stating, “How would anyone feel? These are horrible things to say. There is absolutely no proof.” He criticized the influencer for making baseless claims without any evidence, asserting, “All these things are false, basically. So now you have to defend yourself because he who alleges must prove. I’ve taken legal action for defamation of character, as that’s clearly what this is.”
Falz also clarified recent misreporting regarding the court case, stating that while no financial compensation had been mandated by the court, there was a ruling for Verydarkman to remove the defamatory video.
“Recently, it was reported that the court ordered N500 million to be paid, which is false. The defamation case is still very much in court. Yes, we have initiated proceedings for defamation because, of course, that is what this is. That is still ongoing.”
He explained that there are interim applications that can be made while a substantive case is still pending. “You can apply to the court for an injunction because this defamation still exists. This video I’m referring to is still on his page; he hasn’t taken it down.”
“The court’s ruling was to remove the video and refrain from making any further defamatory remarks pending the resolution of this substantive suit. That is the situation.”