The FCT High Court, presided over by Justice Nwosu Iheme, on Mond 12th Aug, 2024 has issued a fresh status quo injunction in favor of Prophet Jeremiah Omoto Fufeyin of the Deliverance Mercy Land International Ministry, Warri, Delta State.
The order is against Mr. Martins Vincent Otse, widely known as “Very Dark Man,” a prominent YouTuber, blogger, and self-proclaimed freedom fighter who operates on various social media platforms, including Facebook.
The court’s decision comes as part of ongoing legal proceedings initiated by Prophet Jeremiah, who filed a lawsuit against Mr. Otse for alleged defamation.
The plaintiff’s legal team, led by Joel Karatu Esq., presented evidence of multiple libelous posts and videos made by “Very Dark Man” on social media, which they claim have caused significant damage to the Prophet’s reputation both within his church community and among his global business partners.
Click The Image To Know More About ELEOS SPECIALIST HOSPITAL👇
During today’s hearing, the court reiterated its earlier injunction, barring Mr. Otse from publishing or disseminating any further defamatory content about Prophet Jeremiah on any social media platform, including Facebook and YouTube. Justice Iheme expressed concern over the continued publication of defamatory material, despite previous court orders, and issued a stern warning to Mr. Otse’s counsel, Ademola Oyedoku Esq., to properly advise and guide his client. The judge also criticized the inadequacy of a motion filed by Mr. Otse’s legal team in an attempt to regularize a court process, deeming it incompetent.
The court has adjourned the case to Friday, August 16, 2024, at 12 PM, for a definite hearing of all applications.
In documents submitted to the court, Prophet Jeremiah’s legal team highlighted the extensive damage caused by the defamatory posts, stating that the content had been widely circulated among his family, church members, and friends, all of whom are active on social media. The plaintiff intends to present additional evidence of defamation during the trial.
This case continues to attract significant public attention as it underscores the challenges of navigating defamation and free speech in the age of social media
