On April 1, 2026, cryptocurrency entrepreneur Linus Williams Ifejirika, popularly known as Blord, was arraigned at the Federal High Court in Abuja on charges of criminal conspiracy, impersonation, and unauthorised use of identity brought by social media activist Martins Vincent Otse, known as VeryDarkMan or VDM. Blord pleaded not guilty and was remanded in Kuje Correctional Centre until April 27. But it was what VDM did and said next that has sparked a national debate: he posted a video from the courthouse, celebrated the remand, taunted Blord, and declared “I don send am to prison.” The question now being asked across Nigeria is: can a complainant “jail” someone? Does that language suggest he influenced the outcome? And what does it mean in the eyes of the law?

Immediately after the April 1 arraignment proceedings at the Federal High Court in Abuja, VeryDarkMan posted a video from the courthouse area that quickly went viral. In it, he made a series of celebratory and taunting statements about Blord’s remand to Kuje Correctional Centre.

“I don send am to prison. Blord run the group prison. Blord, go there… go there, just spend Easter. Blord go spend Easter for there.”

He described physically following Blord from the courtroom to the prison van, saying he was “escorting” him to Kuje.

“We are escorting him now. As you can see, I am escorting Blord to Kuje Prison. We’re on the road to Kuje. Show them where Blord is, inside the Black Maria.”

His tone was described as celebratory, triumphant, and taunting. He laughed, spoke in Pidgin English, and presented the remand as his personal victory not the court’s decision, not the prosecution’s work, not the application of due process, but his own achievement: “I don send am.”

In the eyes of Nigerian law, and indeed the law of every functioning democracy on earth, a complainant does not “jail” anyone. The criminal justice system does not work that way. Here is how it actually works:

A complainant reports an alleged offence to law enforcement. Law enforcement investigates and, if there is sufficient evidence, charges the suspect. The prosecution presents the case before a court. The court and only the court determines whether the accused should be remanded, granted bail, convicted, or acquitted. At no point in this process does the complainant have the power to “send” anyone to prison. That power belongs exclusively to the court.

So when VeryDarkMan said “I don send am to prison,” what exactly did he mean? If he was speaking loosely, using street language to say “I brought the case that led to his remand,” then it is inaccurate but understandable. But if he genuinely believes he has the power to “send” someone to prison, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. And if the public interprets his words to mean he influenced the judge’s decision, that is far more dangerous.

This is the question that many Nigerians are now asking, and it is one that cannot be dismissed as mere social media chatter. When a complainant stands outside a courthouse, films a video, and publicly declares that he personally sent the accused to prison celebrating it as though the outcome was his to decide it raises a deeply uncomfortable question about the integrity of the proceedings.

Did VeryDarkMan influence the court’s decision? Did he pay the judge? Did he have a prior arrangement with the prosecution? Did someone guarantee him a specific outcome before the hearing took place?

There is no evidence that any of these things happened. The remand of Blord appears to have followed standard legal procedure: the charges were read, Blord pleaded not guilty, the prosecution opposed bail at that stage, and the court ordered remand pending the next hearing on April 27, 2026. This is a routine outcome in cases involving allegations of fraud, forgery, and impersonation, particularly where the prosecution argues that evidence could be tampered with.

But the point is not whether VDM actually influenced the court. The point is that his language and behaviour created the public perception that he did. And in a country where public trust in the judiciary is already fragile, that perception is almost as damaging as the act itself.

It is crucial to state clearly: Blord has not been convicted of anything. He pleaded not guilty. He has been remanded which means he is being held in custody while the case proceeds. Remand is not a conviction. It is not a sentence. It is not a finding of guilt. It is a procedural step that occurs in many criminal cases, particularly at the arraignment stage.

Under Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), every person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction. This is not a suggestion. It is a constitutional guarantee.

When VeryDarkMan declared “I don send am to prison” and celebrated as though a final conviction had been secured, he was publicly treating a remand as though it were a sentence. This undermines the presumption of innocence that every accused person including Blord is entitled to under the law.

If VeryDarkMan believes he has already “jailed” Blord, does he see the April 27 hearing as a formality? Does he believe the outcome has already been decided? And if so, what does that say about the fairness of the process?

For the avoidance of doubt, here is how the Nigerian criminal justice system is supposed to work:

The complainant reports the offence. The complainant does not decide the charge, does not decide whether to prosecute, does not decide whether to grant or refuse bail, does not decide whether to remand, does not decide whether to convict, and does not decide the sentence. All of these decisions belong to law enforcement, the prosecution, and ultimately, the court.

A complainant who parades himself as the one who “jailed” the accused is not only legally incorrect he is potentially in contempt of the process. The court made the decision. The court ordered the remand. The court and only the court will decide whether Blord is guilty or not guilty at the end of the trial.

VeryDarkMan’s role in this case is that of a complainant. He brought the allegations. He has every right to seek justice through the legal system. But the moment he starts claiming ownership of the outcome “I jailed him,” “I sent him to prison,” “I escorted him to Kuje” he crosses a line from seeking justice to claiming power that he does not have.

Setting aside VDM’s post-court behaviour, the underlying case involves serious allegations that deserve proper judicial examination. The charges brought against Blord include:

  • Criminal conspiracy in connection with the alleged scheme to use VDM’s identity for commercial promotion without consent.
  • Impersonation — allegedly using VDM’s name, face, and identity on billboards, fliers, and promotional materials without permission.
  • Forgery — allegedly forging flight tickets in the name “Martins Otse” to claim VDM was attending a product launch in Onitsha.
  • False representation — allegedly claiming VDM had been paid ₦500 million as a brand ambassador and had endorsed Blord’s apps.
  • Unauthorised use of identity — editing VDM’s image into marketing materials, allegedly causing public confusion (people reportedly gathered in Onitsha expecting to see VDM).

VDM has stated publicly, including in his social media bios, that he does not endorse products, take adverts, or accept ambassadorships, and has turned down deals worth over ₦700 million. If the allegations are proved, the conduct could amount to forgery, identity theft, breach of privacy and image rights, passing off, and false representation.

These are serious allegations. But they are allegations. They have not been proved. And the person who will determine whether they are proved is the judge not VeryDarkMan.

VDM’s celebratory conduct has drawn sharp criticism from multiple public figures. Nigerian rap star Phyno, during a performance at the International Conference Centre in Enugu on Easter Sunday (April 5, 2026), publicly asked VDM to withdraw the case. With VDM standing beside him on stage, Phyno made the request directly.

“I have a request. I’m just going to say it whether you respond or not is up to you. My brother, please withdraw the case. I know I didn’t tell you about it, but withdraw the case.”

VDM did not respond to the plea on stage. The concert, curated by Director Pink, featured appearances by Olamide, Jeriq, Aguero Banks, Wande Coal, Cheque, Tuffking, Qing Madi, and Evado.

Activist Omoyele Sowore also criticised VDM, calling his actions oppression rather than victory, and vowing to help secure Blord’s release. Meanwhile, Blord’s camp has reportedly said no one should beg VDM on his behalf and that he will fight the case fully.

Lawyer Confidence Aribibia, analysing the case, explained that bail is not automatic in Nigerian law and that courts can refuse it where there is a perceived risk of evidence tampering, especially with digital records, apps, fliers, and billboards. She stressed that remand does not equal conviction and that Blord remains presumed innocent.

The broader concern raised by VDM’s behaviour is whether Nigeria’s criminal justice system is being used as a tool of personal revenge rather than a mechanism for justice. There is a difference between seeking accountability for alleged wrongdoing and personally taunting someone who has been remanded, filming their transport to prison, and declaring to the world that you are the one who put them there.

If the allegations against Blord are true, VDM is entitled to justice. Nobody should be able to use another person’s identity, forge documents in their name, or falsely claim endorsement deals without consequences. The law exists to protect people from exactly this kind of conduct.

But justice is not the same as revenge. And the way a complainant conducts himself after a court proceeding matters — not just morally, but legally. A complainant who publicly celebrates a remand as though it were a final conviction, who taunts the accused, and who claims personal credit for the court’s decision is behaving in a way that can undermine the very case he brought.

If VDM’s celebratory behaviour continues, could Blord’s defence team argue that the complainant’s conduct demonstrates that this is a personal vendetta rather than a genuine pursuit of justice? Could it be raised as evidence of malice? Could it affect the court’s perception of VDM’s credibility as a complainant?

For absolute clarity, here is what Nigerian law provides:

Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution: Every person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. This means Blord is innocent right now, as a matter of constitutional law, regardless of what VDM says in his videos.

Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution: Every person is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court. The operative words are “by a court” — not by a complainant, not by social media, and not by a crowd outside the courthouse.

The Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 (ACJA): Sets out the procedure for arrest, arraignment, bail, remand, trial, and sentencing. At no point does the ACJA give a complainant the power to “send” anyone to prison. That power resides exclusively with the court.

In simple terms: VeryDarkMan did not jail Blord. The Federal High Court, Abuja, ordered his remand. VeryDarkMan is the complainant. He is entitled to bring the case. He is entitled to give evidence. He is entitled to seek justice. But he is not entitled to claim that he personally put anyone in prison, because that is not how the law works.

Blord remains in Kuje Correctional Centre as of the time of this report. The case is adjourned to April 27, 2026, at the Federal High Court, Abuja, where the next hearing will take place. At that hearing, Blord’s legal team may apply for bail. The prosecution may present further arguments. And the court — not VeryDarkMan — will decide the next steps.

No final verdict has been delivered. No conviction has been entered. No sentence has been imposed. Blord is presumed innocent until proved guilty by the court. And VeryDarkMan, whatever he may believe or claim in his videos, is a complainant — nothing more, nothing less.

“The question for Nigeria is simple: do we want a justice system where the court decides guilt and innocence, or one where the complainant celebrates outside the courthouse and tells the world “I don send am to prison”? If it is the latter, then it is not justice. It is spectacle. And spectacle is the enemy of the rule of law.”

Follow Our WhatsApp Channel ________________________________________________________________________ The Law And Practice Of Redundancy In Nigeria: A Practitioner’s Guide, Authored By A Labour & Employment Law Expert Bimbo Atilola _______________________________________________________________________

[A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials

“Evidence Act: Complete Annotation” by renowned legal experts Sanni & Etti.

Available now for NGN 40,000 at ASC Publications, 10, Boyle Street, Onikan, Lagos. Beside High Court, TBS. Email publications@ayindesanni.com or WhatsApp +2347056667384. Purchase Link: https://paystack.com/buy/evidence-act-complete-annotation

______________________________________________________________________ ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR LAWYERS: A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE Reimagine your practice with the power of AI “...this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic.” — Ohio Books Ltd Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe, Esq., ACIArb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director, Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria. Bonus: Get a FREE eBook titled “How to Use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion” with every purchase.

How to Order: 📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878 📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com 🌐 Website: www.benadigwe.com

Ebook Version: Access directly online at: https://selar.com/prv626

______________________________________________________________________ “Bridging Theory And Courtroom Practice” — Hagler Sunny Okorie, Nathaniel Ngozi Ikeocha Unveil ‘Functional’ Tort Law Book For Nigerian Legal System The book, titled The Law of Torts in Nigeria: A Functional Approach, authored by Professor Hagler Sunny Okorie Ph.D and Ikeocha, Nathaniel Ngozi Esq, offers law students, practitioners, and academics a comprehensive guide to understanding and applying tort law in Nigerian courts. Interested buyers can place orders via the following contact numbers: 08028636615, 08037667945, 08032253813, or +234 902 196 2209. ______________________________________________________________________ “Enhance Legal Practice With Authoritative Reports” — Alexander Payne Offers Comprehensive Law Reports, Spanning Over A Century Of Nigerian Jurisprudence

Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via: 0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888 Website: www.alexandernigeria.com