Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia of the Federal High Court in Abuja has recused herself from the criminal case filed by the Nigeria Police Force against cryptocurrency entrepreneur Linus Williams, popularly known as BLord, arising from impersonation allegations made by social media activist Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan, directing that the matter be returned to the Honourable Chief Judge for reassignment to another court.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
The case was adjourned to May 19, 2026, for mention before a new judge.
However, the recusal has triggered pointed questions from Nigerians and legal observers who are asking why the judge chose to withdraw at this stage, after having presided over every critical phase of the case, including the arraignment on April 1, the remand that kept BLord in Kuje Correctional Centre for 16 days including Easter, the bail hearing on April 17, and the bail conditions that required deposit of his international passport and production of two sureties.
The timing of the withdrawal, after the judge had exercised significant judicial power over the defendant’s liberty for weeks, has drawn particular scrutiny, with some commentators describing the sequence as raising uncomfortable questions about the administration of justice and suggesting that a recusal should have come before, not after, the defendant spent over two weeks in prison.
At the proceedings on Sunday, BLord was present in court. VeryDarkMan made a brief appearance before exiting the courtroom premises. Nigerian human rights activist Omoyele Sowore, who had been instrumental in securing BLord’s bail during earlier proceedings and had publicly condemned the detention, was also in attendance.
Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia announced her decision to recuse herself from the case without, according to reports from the proceedings, providing detailed public reasons for the withdrawal. She directed that the case file be returned to the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court for reassignment to another judge.
The adjournment to May 19 means BLord’s case, which began on April 1 and has already consumed nearly a month of court time, will essentially restart before a new judge who must familiarise themselves with the entire case before proceedings can meaningfully advance.
The question that has dominated public reaction to the recusal is simple: why now?
Legal observers have noted that Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia presided over every significant proceeding in the case without any indication that she intended to withdraw.
On April 1, she arraigned BLord on the six-count charge and remanded him in Kuje Correctional Centre after the prosecution opposed bail. The remand decision meant BLord, a first-time defendant on non-violent charges, was sent to one of Nigeria’s most high-security correctional facilities.
During BLord’s 16 days in Kuje, including the Easter holiday period, the judge was the presiding judicial officer with the power to reconsider the remand or expedite the bail hearing. No recusal was mentioned during this period.
On April 17, she heard the bail application, noted that VDM’s lawyer had withdrawn opposition to bail, and granted bail on self-recognisance with conditions including deposit of BLord’s international passport and production of two sureties. The decision to grant bail, while welcomed, came only after extended detention.
On April 21, BLord was finally released from Kuje after his passport arrived from Anambra State and his bail conditions were perfected, three days after bail was granted because of logistical delays.
The case was then adjourned to April 27 for continuation, at which point, rather than proceeding, the judge recused herself.
The sequence, arraignment, remand, weeks of detention, bail hearing, bail grant, release, and then recusal, has left many asking what changed between the bail hearing and the recusal that made the judge decide she could no longer preside over the case.
“You remanded him. You kept him in prison. You granted him bail. You set conditions. And now you pull out? What happened between then and now?” one legal commentator asked on social media.
Others have been more direct, with some tinting the recusal with suggestions of impropriety. “Something does not add up,” several users posted, with some explicitly describing the sequence as having the appearance of corruption, though no specific evidence of wrongdoing has been presented.
The suggestion, articulated by multiple commentators, is that a judge who had reason to recuse should have done so at the earliest opportunity, ideally before exercising the power to remand a defendant in prison, not after the defendant had already served weeks in custody and been released on bail.
BLord faces a six-count charge bordering on alleged cybercrime, impersonation, and fraud, filed by the Inspector-General of Police following a petition by VeryDarkMan.
The charges stem from allegations that the 27-year-old businessman fraudulently used the identity, image, and brand of VeryDarkMan to promote his business ventures, including the Billpoint application.
In one count, prosecutors accused BLord of falsely claiming that VeryDarkMan endorsed his platform as the “number one app” for booking local and international flights, violating provisions of the Cybercrime (Prevention, Protection, etc.) Act.
Another charge alleges that he used his Instagram handle, @mrblordofficial, to mislead the public into believing VeryDarkMan was his brand ambassador with the intent of gaining financial advantage.
The prosecution further accused him of making false promotional posts, including claims that VDM would attend a business rally in Onitsha, Anambra State, allegedly to lure unsuspecting members of the public into making financial commitments based on the announcement.
Additional counts include alleged involvement in permitting the use of business premises linked to Blord Group for disseminating fraudulent messages, as well as the creation of fake digital records, including a purported flight ticket bearing the name “Martins Otse.”
The offences are charged under the Cybercrime Act (as amended in 2024) and the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act 2006.
BLord has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The broader trajectory of the case has been pointing toward an out-of-court settlement rather than a full trial.
At the April 17 bail hearing, VDM’s lawyer withdrew the counter-affidavit opposing bail and told the court he no longer objected, a dramatic shift that signalled behind-the-scenes negotiations. BLord’s lawyer, Abubakar Marshal, confirmed after the hearing that “my client offended VDM but the two parties are looking at how to settle the matter amicably.”
VDM subsequently announced a total withdrawal from all social media platforms, a move whose timing suggested a connection to the settlement discussions, though VDM framed it as a response to accusations that his posts were distracting Nigerian youths from holding the government accountable.
The recusal and reassignment to a new judge could affect the settlement dynamics. If both parties had been negotiating toward a resolution that the original judge was aware of, the introduction of a new judge resets the judicial relationship and may delay any formalisation of a settlement.
Sowore, who has been a consistent presence throughout the proceedings, attended the hearing on Sunday. He had earlier condemned BLord’s detention as unjust and described the case as an example of the legal system being weaponised against citizens.
“We must all agree that sending BLord to prison is not a victory for legal brilliance or advocacy. Rather, it risks emboldening a system of oppression that weaponises the law against citizens,” Sowore had stated.
He described BLord’s release from Kuje as evidence that “collective action can yield results” and declared that “no one should be abandoned to unjust detention.”
Sowore also disclosed that he had contacted his lawyer to withdraw from any personal involvement in the matter while reiterating his commitment to ensuring BLord’s freedom.
His continued presence at the proceedings, even after the recusal, suggests he remains engaged with the case and will monitor its progress before the new judge.
For BLord, the recusal means his case will be heard by a new judge who must start from scratch in terms of familiarity with the facts, the parties, and the procedural history. While the new judge will have access to the case file and the records of previous proceedings, they will not have the benefit of having observed the witnesses, heard the arguments, or developed the contextual understanding that comes from presiding over a case from its inception.
The May 19 mention date suggests the case will not advance substantively until at least late May, adding further delay to proceedings that began on April 1. If the new judge requires additional time to familiarise themselves with the case, substantive hearing dates could be pushed further into June or beyond.
For VDM, the recusal introduces uncertainty into whatever settlement negotiations may be underway. A new judge may have different views on the case, the charges, and any proposed resolution.
For the broader legal community, the recusal raises questions about judicial case management and the timing of recusal decisions. While judges have an absolute right to recuse themselves from cases where they believe their continued participation could compromise the appearance of justice, the exercise of that right carries greater weight when it comes early rather than late in the proceedings.
Justice Ofili-Ajumogobia did not publicly disclose the specific reason for her recusal. In Nigerian judicial practice, judges are not always required to provide detailed reasons for withdrawal, and the decision is generally respected as an exercise of judicial discretion.
However, the absence of an explanation, combined with the timing of the recusal after weeks of active judicial involvement including the exercise of remand and bail powers, has created a vacuum that public speculation has filled.
Whether the recusal was motivated by a belated recognition of a conflict of interest, a concern about the appearance of impartiality, a procedural consideration, or some other factor known only to the judge, the lack of public explanation ensures that the questions and speculation will continue.
For a case that began as a social media dispute between two influencers, the BLord-VDM matter has exposed fault lines in Nigeria’s criminal justice process, from the propriety of criminal charges for what some view as a civil dispute, to the length of pre-trial detention for non-violent offences, to the timing of judicial recusal after substantive proceedings have been conducted.
The case now moves to a new judge. The questions about the old one remain.
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
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.
_______________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________ [A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
