VeryDarkMan

VeryDarkMan
VeryDarkMan
Born	Martins Vincent Otse1 (1994-04-08) 8 April 1994 Abuja, Nigeria
Other names	VDM Verydarkblackman
Occupation	Activist internet personality
Years active	2022–present2
Movement	Advocacy Internet activism
Website	mvoi4all.com

Martins Vincent Otse^{3 ⓘ} (born 8 April 1994),⁴ populary known as VeryDarkMan, is a Nigerian influencer and content creator.⁵.⁶ Otse is regarded as one of the most online controversial figures in Nigeria.⁷⁸

Martins Vincent Otse was born on 8 April 1994 in Abuja, Nigeria.⁹ He is originally from Agenebode, Edo State. He spent his formative years in Abuja Nigeria.¹⁰¹¹¹²

VeryDarkMan's social media activism career commenced in 2022.¹³ Initially, he gained attention through his interactions with Nigerian celebrities, which led to an increase in his online following. Subsequently, he began posting a series of videos that sparked controversy. By early 2023, his content had gone viral, further amplifying the controversy surrounding his online presence.¹⁴

In October 2024, Otse founded the Martins Vincent Otse Initiative (MVOI), a non-governmental organisation headquartered in Abuja focused on public education reform, community development, and financial transparency.¹⁵ The organisation raised over ₦33 million from small-scale donors within its first 24 hours of launch.¹⁵ A subsequent ₦100 million donation from music executive Don Jazzy drew national attention to the initiative, sparking wider discussion.¹⁶¹⁷

In April 2025, Otse claimed to have donated ₦20 million through the MVOI to the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP) to fund the repatriation and rehabilitation of underage Nigerian girls trafficked to Ivory Coast. The agency later reported that the money was returned back to him.¹⁸ Following the donation, 70 trafficked girls were subsequently repatriated to Nigeria, with Air Peace providing flights for the rescue operation at no cost.¹⁹

Otse founded the Ratel Movement.²⁰ He presents the movement as a platform for civic engagement aimed at addressing social issues.²¹ However, the movement has also attracted criticism.²²²³

Otse has been involved in several public controversies, legal disputes, and confrontations arising primarily from his social media activities and public commentary.

In March 2024, Otse was arrested on allegations of cyberbullying and cyberstalking, including false accusations against Nigerian actresses and officials.²⁴ He pleaded not guilty and was remanded in police custody until his hearing on May 29, 2024. After two weeks in detention, he was released.²⁵ In June 2024, he was arrested again at his Abuja residence on defamation charges related to a social media exposé.²⁶ Otse was questioned by police on June 30, 2024, regarding defamation allegations and released shortly after. No arrest was made, contrary to initial reports.²⁷

During this period, Otse was also involved in public disputes with religious figure Jeremiah Omoto Fufeyin, whom he criticised over the sale and promotion of alleged "miracle" products. The dispute reportedly resulted in a defamation suit filed against him.²⁸

In December 2024, Otse claimed that ₦180 million had been stolen from the NGO's accounts through a hacking incident, before later stating that the claim was a deliberate experiment designed to test the speed of misinformation spread within Nigerian digital media. Critics, however, argued that the move also appeared to gauge how Nigerians would react if such funds were eventually misappropriated for personal use. ²⁹³⁰

Otse also sparked public concern when he appeared to stage the purchase of a luxury car reportedly worth over ₦270 million. The development raised questions among Nigerians, particularly given that his primary known source of income is content creation. He later stated that the incident was a prank. However, critics argued that the situation may have been a test of public reaction, suggesting that the narrative was reframed as a prank following widespread scrutiny and backlash.³¹

Otse later disclosed that ₦100 million had been withdrawn from the NGO’s account and invested in treasury bills, stating that the interest generated would be used to support operational expenses and staff salaries. The revelation attracted criticism from some members of the public, who expressed concerns about transparency, governance, and the use of charitable funds for investment purposes. Calls were subsequently made by some commentators for regulatory scrutiny to ensure compliance with applicable financial and nonprofit regulations.³²

In 2024, following the imprisonment of Nigerian socialite Bobrisky on charges related to currency abuse, Otse made a series of social media posts criticising Bobrisky, including commentary on his lifestyle and legal situation.³³ In September 2024, Otse released an audio recording, which he alleged implicated Bobrisky in bribery and preferential prison treatment. Bobrisky denied the allegations.³⁴

The controversy escalated after the recording appeared to reference senior lawyer Femi Falana and his son Falz. Otse subsequently made a series of social media posts directed at Falz, which included remarks that were widely criticised as defamatory and inappropriate.³⁵

On September 26, 2024, Falana & Falana Chambers issued a 24-hour ultimatum to Otse, demanding a retraction and apology for allegedly defamatory statements against Femi Falana, made in his September 25, 2024 Instagram post.³⁶

In September 2024, VeryDarkMan became involved in a high-profile defamation lawsuit filed at the Effurun High Court in Delta State by Esinjemiyotan Uruneyonjuyei Atsepoyi, popularly known as “Mrs. Jollof,” wife of comedian and media personality Mr Jollof.³⁷

According to court filings, the claimant alleged that VeryDarkMan, through videos published on his verified Instagram account “verydarkblackman,” made defamatory allegations against her between 15 and 19 September 2024. The suit stated that the videos accused her of adultery, sleeping with politicians to secure government appointments for her husband, involvement with “Yahoo boys,” and questioned the paternity of one of her children by suggesting a DNA test.³⁸

The claimant argued that the publications damaged her reputation, exposed her to ridicule and public contempt, and negatively affected her event-planning business and family life. Court documents stated that the videos were widely circulated online to VeryDarkMan’s audience of over 1.7 million followers at the time.³⁹

VeryDarkMan denied liability during the proceedings. He argued that the online dispute originated from exchanges between himself and Mr. Jollof, claiming the statements were part of social media “banter” and retaliatory insults made during a heated online altercation. He also argued that he did not personally know the claimant and that the comments were not directed at her. His legal team further challenged the admissibility of certain electronic evidence under Section 84 of the Nigerian Evidence Act 2011.⁴⁰

During the trial, the court reviewed video evidence tendered by the claimant and heard witness testimony. The court held that the claimant had sufficiently established that the statements referred to her and that the defendant himself admitted making the publications. Justice R. D. Harriman rejected the defense that the remarks were merely banter or made in the heat of anger, noting that additional videos were posted on later dates beyond the initial dispute.⁴¹

In its judgment delivered on 8 May 2026 in Suit No. EHC/203/2024, the High Court of Justice, Effurun Judicial Division, ruled in favour of Mrs. Jollof. Justice Harriman held that the words published by VeryDarkMan were defamatory and unjustifiable. The court found that the defendant failed to prove the allegations or establish valid defenses such as justification, fair comment, or provocation.

The court specifically noted the seriousness of the allegations, including accusations relating to adultery, promiscuity, corruption, and paternity fraud, and held that the publications lowered the claimant in the estimation of “right-thinking members of society.” The judgment also emphasized the broad dissemination of the statements through social media and described the defendant’s conduct as “reckless and unapologetic.”⁴²

The court awarded:

• ₦20 million in general damages;
• ₦10 million in aggravated damages;
• ₦500,000 in legal costs.

The total monetary award amounted to ₦30.5 million.

The court additionally ordered VeryDarkMan to:

• publish a public apology and retraction in two national newspapers;
• post the apology and retraction on all his social media platforms within 14 days of the judgment; and
• refrain from making further defamatory publications against the claimant.

The ruling was widely reported in Nigerian entertainment and social media circles, with commentators describing it as one of the most significant legal defeats faced by the influencer since his rise to prominence online.

In October 2024, Otse was detained by the Nigeria Police Force over a viral video in which he appeared wearing a Nigerian Police Force (NPF) uniform without authorisation.⁴³

In the video, Otse identified himself as a "Chief Superintendent of Police (CSP)" and described himself as an "online police officer", stating that his aim was to address misconduct on social media.⁴⁴

The Nigeria Police Force condemned the act, stating that the unauthorised use of police uniforms, insignia, or accoutrements constitutes an offence under Nigerian law.⁴⁵ The Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Police Command subsequently initiated an investigation into the incident and invited Otse for questioning, after which he was detained.⁴⁶

Following public reactions, Otse issued a statement apologising for the use of the uniform, indicating that he had not been aware that permission was required for such representation.⁴⁷

On November 1, 2024, he was arraigned before a Chief Magistrate Court in Wuse, Abuja, on charges relating to alleged impersonation. He pleaded not guilty.⁴⁸ He was granted bail in the sum of ₦2 million with two sureties, alongside conditions including the submission of his international passport.⁴⁹

The incident generated public debate, with differing views expressed regarding the police response and the broader implications of the use of official law enforcement symbols in digital content.⁵⁰

In early 2025, Otse became involved in a public dispute with Nigerian gospel singer Mercy Chinwo, following her public outcry on social media in which she alleged that her former record label executive was breaching contractual agreements and unfairly withholding her earnings. Shortly after her appeal for support gained attention online, Otse responded with a series of critical posts disputing her claims and accusing her of contractual violations and financial misconduct, thereby escalating the disagreement into a widely followed controversy.⁵¹⁵²

The controversy began after a reported fallout between Chinwo and her former record label executive, Ezekiel Onyedikachukwu (popularly known as Eezee Tee). In a series of social media posts, Otse accused Chinwo of breaching contractual obligations and alleged that she diverted approximately US$345,000 in royalties and performance-related earnings without properly compensating her former label.⁵³ He further claimed that Chinwo and her associates were using religious influence to obscure alleged wrongdoing, and publicly challenged her to pursue legal action against him.⁵⁴⁵⁵

The allegations attracted widespread attention online; however, some commentators and observers described Otse's claims as unverified and characterised his intervention as unprovoked. Critics argued that his content relied on insinuations and lacked independently confirmed evidence, raising concerns about misinformation and reputational harm.

In response, Chinwo filed a defamation lawsuit against Otse at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, seeking ₦1 billion in general damages and an additional ₦100 million in aggravated damages. Her legal team argued that Otse's statements were false, malicious, and damaging to her reputation, and presented documentary evidence, including financial records and correspondence, to refute the allegations.⁵⁶

Subsequently, in March 2025, a Chief Magistrate Court in Abuja issued a bench warrant for Otse's arrest after he failed to appear for a scheduled court hearing on 5 March 2025. The warrant followed his alleged failure to respond to earlier summons related to the case.⁵⁷

Otse, through his legal counsel Deji Adeyanju, dismissed the lawsuit as unfounded, describing it as a "complete joke" and stating that Otse was outside Nigeria at the time the summons was issued. The defence also maintained that his statements were made in the public interest.⁵⁸⁵⁹

The dispute was further complicated by the eventual reconciliation between Chinwo and Onyedikachukwu. Reports indicated that Onyedikachukwu later issued an apology to Chinwo, and both parties reached a settlement regarding their contractual disagreements. This development led to additional public debate, with some observers suggesting that the resolution undermined the basis of the earlier allegations circulated online.⁶⁰

During the course of the dispute, Otse's style of commentary characterised by critical remarks, satire, and suggestive claims drew criticism from sections of the public, who viewed it as excessive and potentially defamatory. Some commentators also objected to insinuations that Chinwo had used influential connections to influence legal proceedings against her former label executive, describing such claims as speculative and damaging.⁶¹

As part of the legal relief sought, Chinwo demanded that Otse remove all allegedly defamatory content from his social media platforms, issue a public apology, and publish retractions in multiple national newspapers for a specified period. She also stated that the incident led to online harassment and threats directed at her and her family.⁶²

The case generated significant public attention and debate regarding the responsibilities of social media influencers, the limits of online commentary, and the legal implications of defamation in Nigeria's digital space. As of April 2026, the matter remained a subject of ongoing legal and public discourse.⁶³

On May 2, 2025, Otse was arrested shortly after visiting a Guarantee Trust Bank branch in Abuja, where he had raised concerns over alleged unauthorised deductions from his mother’s account.⁶⁴⁶⁵ Prior to the visit, Otse had published a series of videos on social media in which he accused the bank of making unlawful deductions, drawing significant public attention to the matter.⁶⁶ Some reports indicated that the posts prompted reactions from his followers, including calls to withdraw patronage from the bank.⁶⁷

The arrest was initially carried out by masked individuals later identified as operatives of the EFCC operatives.⁶⁸ He was detained for five days before being granted administrative bail on May 7, 2025.⁶⁹

EFCC subsequently issued a statement stating that Otse’s arrest was based on petitions alleging financial crimes and that he had failed to honour multiple invitations prior to his detention.⁷⁰

Subsequent reports suggested that the disputed mother’s deductions were linked to a loan facility associated with his mother’s account, although details of the transaction and the circumstances surrounding it were not fully disclosed publicly.⁷¹

Otse was accused of inciting Onista bridge head drug traders to defy regulatory order in a statement released by the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control's Director General, Prof. Mojisola Adeyeye, on May 26th, 2025.⁷² This was shortly after Otse visited the Ogbo Ogwu market and called out the DG of NAFDAC to stop the extortion as it was allegedly said by the traders that they have to pay a certain amount of money before they can embark on their business.⁷³

Prior to his death in September 2023, Nigerian singer MohBad had publicly documented disputes with his former record label, Marlian Music, including allegations of assault, contractual disagreements, and claims of unpaid royalties. In October 2022, he announced the termination of his contract with the label.⁷⁴

Following Mohbad's death under circumstances widely described as unclear, public attention intensified, with widespread calls for investigation into individuals within his professional circle, particularly his former associate Naira Marley.⁷⁵

VeryDarkMan became actively involved in the online discourse, using his social media platforms to comment extensively on the case and position himself as a prominent voice calling for accountability.⁷⁶ His involvement initially aligned with a broader public movement demanding justice, including calls to boycott and "cancel" Naira Marley over alleged links to Mohbad's treatment prior to his death.⁷⁷

However, Otse's role in the discourse became increasingly controversial as he began to promote alternative narratives regarding the circumstances of Mohbad's death. These included repeated public calls for a DNA test involving Mohbad’s widow, Omowunmi Aloba (also known as Wunmi), alongside speculation about paternity and possible motives.⁷⁸ Critics argued that these claims were speculative and risked undermining ongoing investigations.

Otse also engaged in public disputes with other celebrities and activists who were advocating for justice in the case, including actresses Iyabo Ojo and Tonto Dikeh. He accused some of them of misinformation and ulterior motives, while they, in turn, accused him of harassment, defamation, and attempting to dominate the narrative surrounding the case. These exchanges escalated into legal action, with reports indicating that complaints of defamation were filed against him, leading to his arrest by law enforcement authorities.⁷⁹

The controversy deepened following claims by Otse that he had obtained private communications from a WhatsApp group allegedly formed by concerned Nigerians seeking justice for Mohbad. He asserted that the messages contained revelations implicating certain individuals; however, critics noted that no verifiable evidence was publicly presented to substantiate these claims.

In addition, Otse's stance on Naira Marley drew scrutiny after an apparent shift in position. Having previously supported calls for public backlash against the artist, Otse was later seen engaging more positively with him and using his platform to present arguments perceived as defending or exonerating him. This shift prompted accusations of inconsistency from sections of the public.⁸⁰

Mohbad's widow, Wunmi, publicly criticised Otse's actions, accusing him of harassment and of promoting narratives she described as misleading, intrusive, and distressing.⁸¹ Public reaction to Otse's conduct was mixed, with some supporting his calls for broader scrutiny, while others condemned his approach as insensitive, particularly in relation to the bereaved family and the handling of unverified claims.

The episode contributed to wider debates about the role and responsibility of social media commentators in high-profile cases, especially where investigations are ongoing and involve sensitive personal and legal matters.

On 16th June, 2025, following the Yelewata massacre in Benue State.⁸²⁸³ Otse was engaged in a peaceful protest alongside the youth of the community demanding for immediate intervention of the Nigeria government, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the Benue State government.⁸⁴ as the protesters cover the Wurukum food market round-about Makurdi.

A week later, he led another protest with primary school pupils in Abuja over nine-week primary school teachers' strike for the failure of area council chairpersons to implement the new national minimum wage of N70,000.⁸⁵

In late 2025, Otse was involved in a public dispute with Chinese businessman China Ross (also known as Ross Boss), a former associate. The disagreement followed a business-related trip to China reportedly sponsored by Ross, aimed at promoting trade connections between Nigerian consumers and Chinese manufacturers.⁸⁶

Prior to the dispute, Otse had been associated with efforts to support Ross in recovering funds allegedly lost to a scam in 2024, after which both parties were said to have collaborated on initiatives designed to connect Nigerian buyers directly with suppliers in China.⁸⁷

During his visit to China, Otse used his social media platforms to promote products linked to Ross's business and encouraged Nigerians to engage in direct sourcing arrangements. In the course of these promotions, Otse also referenced branding concepts associated with his own platform, which some observers interpreted as an attempt to establish a parallel or independent commercial identity within the partnership.⁸⁸

The relationship later deteriorated, with Otse publicly advising Nigerians to exercise caution in dealings with Ross. He raised concerns about aspects of Ross’s business practices, including product quality and prior transactions, which he described as “suspicious”.⁸⁹ These claims were contested by Ross, who denied any wrongdoing and maintained that he had conducted legitimate business operations with Nigerian clients over several years.⁹⁰ Ross responded by defending his reputation and criticising Otse’s conduct, describing his actions as damaging to their prior collaboration. Reports indicated that communication between the two parties broke down, with Ross severing contact and indicating the possibility of legal action over alleged reputational harm.⁹¹

The dispute generated wider reactions within Nigeria’s online business and trading communities. Some traders expressed concern that the public exposure of supplier relationships could negatively affect existing business channels, while others supported calls for greater transparency in cross-border trade.⁹²

The situation was further complicated by unverified rumours circulating on social media suggesting that Otse had been deported from China, which he publicly denied.⁹³

As of October 2025, the dispute remained unresolved, with public opinion divided between those who viewed Otse’s actions as consumer advocacy and those who considered them detrimental to established business relationships.

In December 2025, Otse became involved in a high-profile dispute with Nigerian human rights activist Harrison Gwamnishu, following allegations of financial misconduct linked to a ransom payment in a kidnapping case in Edo State. The controversy intensified after Gwamnishu's arrest in Benin City.⁹⁴⁹⁵

Otse publicly claimed responsibility for initiating calls that led to Gwamnishu's arrest, alleging that the activist had diverted part of a ransom reportedly totaling ₦20 million, which had been raised to secure the release of a kidnapped couple. According to Otse, Gwamnishu allegedly removed approximately ₦5.4 million from the ransom and substituted it with a lesser amount, thereby putting the life of one of the captives at further risk.⁹⁶

Otse further accused Gwamnishu of misrepresenting his methods during the rescue operation, alleging that claims of using technological tools to track kidnappers were exaggerated or fabricated. These allegations were widely circulated on social media and contributed to heightened public scrutiny of Gwamnishu's activities.⁹⁷

Following these claims, Gwamnishu was reportedly taken into police custody in Benin City. In response, he denied all allegations of wrongdoing, maintaining that his actions had been misinterpreted. However, reports later emerged suggesting that the disputed funds were returned, though details surrounding this development remained unclear.⁹⁸

The dispute also gave rise to widespread speculation regarding Otse's motives. Critics and commentators on social media alleged that his actions were influenced by a desire for prominence within Nigeria's digital activism space, particularly amid Gwamnishu's growing recognition for anti-kidnapping efforts. This perception was reinforced after Gwamnishu publicly disclosed that several influencers had supported his initiatives through donations, a development some observers claimed preceded Otse's intensified scrutiny of his activities.⁹⁹

According to these critics, Otse began publishing a series of exposé-style posts aimed at discrediting Gwamnishu, although some observers described these claims as inconclusive or lacking verifiable evidence. Others characterised the campaign as an attempt to undermine Gwamnishu's reputation and question his credibility as an activist.¹⁰⁰

Otse denied allegations of personal rivalry or ulterior motives, maintaining that his actions were driven by a commitment to transparency and accountability in humanitarian interventions, particularly in cases involving ransom payments. He argued that any form of financial mismanagement in such sensitive situations could endanger victims and erode public trust.¹⁰¹

Public reaction to the controversy was divided. While some supported Otse's stance on accountability, others criticised his approach as excessive and potentially damaging to collaborative efforts against insecurity. The incident also sparked broader debates about the role of private individuals in negotiating ransom payments and the ethical implications of publicising such interventions on social media.¹⁰²

As of late December 2025, the dispute remained a subject of ongoing public discourse, with both figures facing continued scrutiny over their actions and claims.

In 2025, Otse was involved in a public dispute with entrepreneur Blord, which began after he criticised aspects of Blord’s business operations, including alleged issues with a mobile application, through a series of social media posts.¹⁰³ The dispute escalated as both parties exchanged responses online. Otse used his platform to question the pricing and accessibility of Blord’s products, while also promoting alternative options.¹⁰⁴ Some commentators later alleged that the promotion may have been misleading, with claims that the advertised alternative was linked to a close associate, raising concerns about transparency and potential conflict of interest.¹⁰⁵ In response, Blord defended his business and addressed the criticisms publicly, leading to a prolonged online exchange between the two.¹⁰⁶

The controversy drew wider attention after reports indicated that content shared by both parties included the use of each other’s images and branding in promotional or critical contexts.¹⁰⁷ The exchanges attracted mixed reactions from the public, with some supporting the criticism as consumer advocacy, while others viewed it as a commercial dispute amplified through social media.¹⁰⁸

On April 1, 2026, the matter further intensified following reports that law enforcement action was taken against Blord in connection with related allegations.¹⁰⁹ The development generated public debate, with some commentators raising concerns about the role of influence and the appropriateness of involving state authorities in disputes arising from online or commercial disagreements.¹¹⁰

No formal judicial findings establishing wrongdoing by either party in relation to the dispute had been publicly reported at the time.¹¹¹

In February 2026, Otse was involved in a public dispute with social media influencer Michelle Mukoro, popularly known as King Mitchy, following her publication of a school renovation project in Delta State, which she stated was completed within six days with support from donations, including assistance from Seyi Tinubu, son of Nigerian president Bola Tinubu.¹¹² Mukoro’s post was directed at Otse, who had received a substantial amount of public donations but had yet to execute any visible projects. This sparked widespread reactions and led to a direct exchange between both parties. Her remarks were widely interpreted as a critique of Otse, as she questioned the pace and transparency of projects undertaken by his non-governmental initiative despite significant public funding.¹¹³

In response, Otse criticised Mukoro and accused her of being used as a political instrument to promote the image of the Tinubu administration and further accused her of having affairs with Seyi Tinubu by what he described as (bend down to lick the lolipop).¹¹⁴ He also made allegations suggesting that Seyi Tinubu was financially supporting Mukoro’s projects, claims which were denied by Tinubu.¹¹⁵

The dispute escalated across social media platforms, attracting widespread public engagement and criticism. Reports indicated that the exchange led to intense online backlash and harassment directed at Mukoro, who later stated that the situation contributed to the loss of her business social media account.¹¹⁶

During the height of the controversy, Mukoro appeared in a live video in which she was seen consuming a substance believed to be bleach, prompting concern among viewers. A subsequent announcement by her management claiming she had died was later withdrawn, with clarification that she was alive.¹¹⁷

During the same period, Otse posted content on social media that was widely interpreted as a staged or performative act connected to the dispute, in which he appeared to mimic similar actions, including claims of having consumed a substance and subsequent reports of his death and burial. The posts generated significant public reaction and further intensified the controversy.

Some commentators argued that the escalation and surrounding online drama shifted public attention away from earlier concerns raised by Mukoro regarding transparency and accountability in the management of funds collected through Otse’s non-governmental initiative, contributing to broader debate about the role of sensational content in influencing public discourse. In March 2026, Mukoro issued a public apology to Otse, Seyi Tinubu, the Ooni of Ife, and Nigerians, acknowledging that her actions during the controversy were wrong and accepting responsibility for her conduct.¹¹⁸

The incident contributed to broader public discourse on influencer conflicts, online harassment, and accountability in digital activism in Nigeria.

On April 1, 2026, businessman Linus Williams Ifejirika Blord was arraigned before the Federal High Court in Abuja on multiple charges, including identity theft, forgery, and the dissemination of false information, following a dispute involving social media personality Martins Vincent Otse, known as VeryDarkMan.¹¹⁹

The development attracted significant public attention, particularly due to the circumstances surrounding Blord’s arrest and remand. VeryDarkMan had previously criticised Blord’s business practices on social media, alleging that his products were overpriced and exploitative to consumers. These criticisms formed part of a broader online dispute between both parties.

The case generated widespread public debate, with some commentators questioning whether the matter, which originated from a commercial disagreement, warranted criminal prosecution. Allegations also circulated on social media suggesting that personal influence may have played a role in the arrest.¹¹⁹

Human rights activist and politician Omoyele Sowore publicly criticised the remand, describing the matter as civil in nature and arguing that the use of criminal charges in the circumstances was inappropriate.¹²⁰ He further stated that he would advocate for Blord’s release, framing the situation within broader concerns about due process and civil liberties.¹²¹

Following Sowore’s intervention, VeryDarkMan responded through a series of social media posts addressing his critics. In these posts, he challenged Sowore’s position and stated that he would pursue legal action under similar circumstances if his name or image were used without authorisation.¹²²

The exchanges between VeryDarkMan and Sowore further intensified public discourse, with differing views expressed on the role of social media activism, business competition, and the appropriate use of legal mechanisms in resolving disputes. Some commentators criticised what they described as defamatory attacks by VeryDarkMan against Blord and questioned his decision to pursue legal action after initially initiating the public dispute, while others raised concerns about proportionality and the potential misuse of legal processes in what began as a commercial disagreement.

Additional online exchanges between both figures included criticisms and counter-criticisms relating to activism, political engagement, and public conduct. These claims and counterclaims were widely circulated on social media, though many remained unverified and subject to public interpretation.