Controversial crossdresser Idris Okuneye, known as Bobrisky, has urged human rights activist and lawyer Femi Falana, along with his son Falz to hold activist Martin VeryDarkMan’ Otse responsible for the defamatory statement.
In September, VeryDarkMan released audio recordings that suggested Bobrisky claimed he sought Falz’s assistance in persuading his father for a presidential pardon, implying that a payment of N10 million was involved. He also alleged that he requested N3 million from Falz to obtain special treatment at Kirikiri Correctional Centre, among others.
Reacting to the accusations, Falana and Falz demanded a public apology within 12 hours, asserting that Bobrisky’s statements were defamatory and false. Their legal representatives characterized Bobrisky’s claims as completely baseless and damaging to Falana’s reputation, calling for a full retraction and an apology to be issued on all platforms where the statements were made.
Bobrisky clarified that he had never given any money to Falana or his son for a presidential pardon during his time in prison.
However, on Wednesday, Bobrisky shared on his instagram page that the person who shared the audio should be held responsible for the defamatory comment.
He said, “I Okuneye Idris aka Bobrisky didn’t give Falz or his dad any money for pardon. As a matter of fact, no penny was given to them. Have said this before and I will say it again. The person that published an audio online should take full responsibility for what he posted in public.
He further wrote, “In reply to the two letters in circulation from the law firm of the Falanas. I like to state for the records and pending the official reply from my counsel, state for the avoidance of doubt that I Okuneye Idris Olarewaju aka Bobrisky did not publish any defamatory statement or statements concerning the learned SAN and his son Falz and that in the public domain pursuant to my solicitor’s letter dated the 27th day of September 2024 that I have denied any knowledge of what VDM published.
“I stand to express denial and put the matter to strict proof and advise that whoever has been defamed should hold the publisher of defamatory content and my fundamental rights to privacy of my communications should be respected and protected.”
