By Abdulahmeed Abdulrozaq Bilal | Fact Frontier.
Click here to read more about the reporter.
As the legal showdown between online critic VeryDarkman (VDM) and crypto entrepreneur Blord continues to grip Nigeria, the public remains divided. While some see VDM’s legal action as excessive, a growing number of legal observers argue that his decision to report the matter to the authorities is not just justified, but legally imperative.
The core of the argument rests on a simple but powerful principle: legal self-defense. In the ongoing dispute, VDM has accused Blord of using his image, name, and supporter tag “Ratel” without permission, allegedly forging a flight ticket in VDM’s name, and falsely claiming a ₦500 million endorsement deal. Under Nigerian law, these actions—if proven—constitute criminal impersonation, forgery, and identity theft.
The Risk of Silence
Legal analysts point to a crucial angle many ignore: liability through inaction. Had VDM ignored the alleged impersonation and Blord later committed a financial or criminal act using VDM’s identity, VDM could have been implicated as an accomplice or, at the very least, as a negligent party. In Nigerian jurisprudence, failing to publicly disavow or legally challenge the unauthorized use of one’s identity can be construed as acquiescence—implied consent.
Read also:
• Case of Mrs. Rukayat – a looming injustice that needs scrutiny.
“If Blord had used VDM’s name to defraud a third party, and VDM had never reported the matter, the victim could argue that VDM allowed the impersonation to continue,” explains a Lagos-based legal practitioner who requested anonymity. “By taking legal action now, VDM creates a public record that he never authorized any such use. That record is his shield against future liability.”
A Precedent of Protection
This is not about vengeance; it is about legal hygiene. By filing a formal complaint and securing Blord’s remand, VDM has effectively drawn a line in the sand. Any future misuse of his identity by anyone—whether Blord or another party—can now be traced back to this moment of legal protest.
Furthermore, Nigerian law does not require a victim to wait for actual financial loss before acting. The moment Blord allegedly forged a flight ticket in VDM’s name, a crime was committed. Reporting it was not only VDM’s right but arguably his duty to the integrity of his own legal identity.
The Counterargument—And Its Flaw
Critics like activist Omoyele Sowore argue that VDM is “weaponizing the law” to settle a personal score. But from a strictly legal perspective, the criminal code makes no exception for “personal scores.” If the alleged acts meet the elements of a crime, the victim has every right to seek redress. The fact that Blord is a popular figure does not grant him immunity.
Conclusion
While the moral debate over whether imprisonment is too harsh for identity theft will continue, the legal logic leans clearly in VDM’s favor. In a digital age where identity is currency, failing to legally challenge its theft is a gamble no one should take. VDM’s decision to involve the court is not just about winning a feud—it is about securing a legal firewall between his name and future criminal liability. For that reason, legally speaking, VDM is right.
