Defamation and Social Media: A Critical Analysis of the Bobrisky, VeryDarkMan, Femi Falana, and Falz Case

Defamation, traditionally confined to newspapers and public speeches, has found a dangerous new form in the age of social media. With information spreading at lightning speed, reputations can be destroyed in an instant—even when the accusations are false or exaggerated. The recent controversy involving Nigerian figures Bobrisky, VeryDarkMan (VDM), and the Falana family demonstrates the challenges posed by defamation today. This case provides an intersection between defamation law, public accountability, and the impact of unchecked speech on digital platforms.

The Case: From Social Commentary to Legal Battle

The controversy began when VDM, a social media activist, shared an audio clip that allegedly contained Bobrisky claiming Femi Falana, a prominent human rights lawyer, and his son, the rapper Falz, had demanded ₦10 million to help her secure a presidential pardon. The claims immediately went viral, spreading across the internet. As a result, the Falanas found themselves implicated in a serious corruption scandal that could harm their decades-long reputation of integrity in Nigerian society [1].

In response, Femi Falana and his son swiftly denied the allegations. They issued a formal demand for retraction and threatened legal action against VDM for defamation unless an immediate public apology was made​ [2].

While VDM eventually issued an apology, this did not stop the Falanas from exploring legal redress. This case offers an important glimpse into how unchecked rumors can escalate into significant legal and personal crises, highlighting the dangers of misinformation in the digital age.

Defamation: A Historical and Legal Perspective

Defamation law aims to protect individuals from false statements that damage their reputations. Historically, the law distinguishes between slander (spoken defamation) and libel (written defamation), requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate that the statement was false, damaging, and made with malicious intent or reckless disregard for the truth [3] . In traditional media, verifying such claims was simpler because the sources were limited, and the damage could be controlled through retractions or legal action.

However, the digital age has disrupted these frameworks. Social media platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube allow individuals to broadcast opinions, rumors, and allegations to millions instantly, often without verifying the authenticity of their claims. Once these messages go viral, they are nearly impossible to contain, and even retractions may not repair the damage caused. In Nigeria, where defamation law still leans heavily on English Common Law principles, the challenge is how to apply these age-old rules to a vastly different media landscape​.

This issue is at the heart of the Bobrisky-Falana case. Is VDM guilty of defamation, or was he exercising his right to free speech? Even more critically, how should society balance the need for free expression with the need to protect reputations, particularly for public figures whose standing in society is integral to their work?

Social Media's Role in Defamation

Social media has empowered voices like VDM, giving activists and commentators platforms to reach large audiences. VDM's initial aim was to expose what he believed to be corruption involving Bobrisky and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) [4]. According to the audio clip he shared, Bobrisky allegedly bribed EFCC officials ₦15 million to drop money laundering charges, and Falana was supposedly involved in facilitating the deal [5].​ However, the Falanas quickly refuted these claims, calling VDM’s accusations "vicious" and "reckless"​.

The speed with which the allegations spread on social media intensified the damage, prompting a legal response. For public figures like the Falanas, false accusations, even if later retracted, can cause profound and lasting harm to their professional and personal reputations.

VDM, for his part, defended himself by stating that he was not the originator of the claims but rather was amplifying what Bobrisky had already confessed. He claimed that his primary intention was to expose corruption, not to defame Femi Falana or his son​. 

This defense shifts the debate from whether VDM defamed the Falanas to whether his actions were justified under the banner of public interest [6].

The Concept of Fair Comment

VDM's defense potentially leans on the concept of fair comment, a well-established doctrine in defamation law. Fair comment allows individuals to express opinions on matters of public interest, provided these opinions are based on facts and not motivated by malice. It is often used as a shield in defamation cases when the speaker’s intention is to engage in honest commentary rather than to damage someone's reputation [7].

In defamation cases involving public figures or political issues, fair comment becomes a vital defense. For instance, news outlets rely on this doctrine to critique political leaders or expose potential misconduct. In these situations, the public’s right to know takes precedence, as long as the statements are not reckless or malicious [8].

In VDM's case, the question is whether his comments fall under fair comment. The challenge is that the audio he shared was presented as factual, not as an opinion or commentary. The recording made it appear that VDM was asserting a factual allegation—that Falana was complicit in corruption. If VDM’s statements are proven to be false, then fair comment may not apply, as this defense does not protect falsehoods presented as fact [9].​

Broader Implications for Activists and Public Figures

This case raises larger questions about how public figures and activists engage in the age of social media. For public figures like Falana, protecting one’s reputation has become increasingly challenging. False claims, especially when they spread virally, can damage careers built over decades. For activists like VDM, social media has provided a powerful platform for raising awareness and exposing corruption, but it has also increased the risk of legal battles over defamation.

While whistleblowers play a critical role in exposing injustice, the VDM case illustrates how easily the lines between responsible activism and reckless defamation can blur. Without proper verification, even well-meaning activism can lead to harmful misinformation​.

Conclusion: Balancing Free Speech and Defamation

The Bobrisky-VDM-Falana case serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of defamation in the social media era. While free speech is essential, particularly in exposing corruption, it must be exercised with responsibility. Activists and commentators must ensure that their claims are supported by verifiable evidence before going public with accusations. On the other hand, public figures like Falana must be able to protect their reputations without stifling legitimate criticism.

Ultimately, defamation laws exist to balance the need for public discourse with the protection of individual reputations. In an age where misinformation spreads faster than ever, the responsibility to ensure truth and fairness in speech is more critical than ever.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍