Social media activist Martins Vincent Otse, also known as VeryDarkMan (VDM), has publicly addressed the recent arrest warrant issued against him by an Abuja Chief Magistrate Court.
In his latest statement, VDM declared that he will not be silenced by the judiciary and claimed there is a conspiracy to suppress his activism.
He pledged to uncover all individuals involved in what he believed to be illegal orders in his case.
VeryDarkMan raised doubts about the circumstances surrounding the arrest warrant, pointing out that his lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, had six cases scheduled on the same day the warrant was issued and that he was in China at the time.
He argued that no reasonable person would issue such an order based on the current case.
Chinwo accused VDM of making defamatory statements on social media, particularly regarding her alleged involvement in a financial dispute involving $345,000.
Chinwo has denied these accusations, providing the court with documentary evidence, including emails and payment receipts, to clear her name. She argued that VDM’s claims have damaged her public image and reputation.
On March 13, 2025, Magistrate Emmanuel Iyanna of the Chief Magistrate Court in Wuse Zone 6, Abuja, issued a bench warrant for VDM’s arrest after he failed to appear for a hearing on March 5, despite being summoned.
The magistrate ordered the Nigeria Police Force and other law enforcement agencies to arrest and present VeryDarkMan in court to answer to the criminal allegations.
VDM’s lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, pleaded with the court to allow him to bring his client voluntarily on the next hearing date, but the magistrate declined to lift the arrest warrant, insisting on enforcement by security agencies.
In addition to the criminal defamation case, Chinwo has filed a separate ₦1.1 billion lawsuit against VDM at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory.
She is demanding that he retract his statements, delete the posts, and issue a public apology.
Chinwo’s legal team, led by Pelumi Olajengbesi, insists that VDM’s actions violate Section 391 of the Penal Code and Section 24 (1)(B) of the Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015.
SEE VIDEO BELOW:
View this post on Instagram