Popular social media personality and entrepreneur Linus Williams Ifejirika, widely known as Blord, has been kept in custody at the Kuje Correctional Centre following an ongoing legal dispute involving activist Martins Vincent Otse, popularly called VeryDarkMan.
The case, which has gained widespread attention online, centers on allegations that Blord allegedly used VeryDarkMan’s image without permission in promotional materials, including a billboard, and made public claims suggesting he paid ₦500 million for endorsement - a claim that has now become a key point of contention in the court proceedings.
A video circulating on social media, including the clip shared via Facebook https://www.facebook.com/share/v/18RavWJz17/ shows moments from the court proceedings and the transfer of Blord into custody following the judge’s ruling.
Court Orders Detention Pending Further Hearing:
During the hearing, the court ordered that Blord be held at the Kuje Correctional Centre until the next adjourned date. The matter has been scheduled to resume on April 26, 2026, as legal teams continue to present arguments and evidence related to the allegations.
The decision to hold Blord has drawn significant public interest, particularly due to the prominence of both individuals involved and the nature of the accusations, which include alleged impersonation and misuse of identity for commercial purposes.
Allegations of Unauthorized Use of Image:
VeryDarkMan has maintained that his likeness was used without consent in marketing materials tied to Blord’s business activities. The controversy intensified following claims that Blord publicly stated he had paid a substantial endorsement fee - a claim that has since been disputed and is now under legal examination.
The court is expected to further review these allegations when proceedings resume later in the month.
Next Steps in the Case:
Blord will remain in custody at the Kuje Correctional Centre until the next court sitting on April 26, 2026, when the court is expected to take further steps in the matter.
As the case unfolds, it continues to highlight the legal implications surrounding the use of personal identity in advertising and the importance of consent in commercial promotions.