A Standstill at the Panel Hearing: VDM Demands Bobrisky’s Presence
On September 30, 2024, social media personality VeryDarkMan (VDM) refused to testify at a panel hearing after discovering that Bobrisky, the focus of the allegations, was absent. VDM had previously accused Bobrisky of paying ₦15 million to EFCC officers and the Nigerian Correctional Services to serve time in a VIP section of Kirikiri Medium Custodial Centre.
VDM criticized Bobrisky’s absence, stating, “I don’t know why I will be here, and the person who made these allegations is not here.” He further alleged that Bobrisky’s “godfather” might have influenced his decision to skip the hearing, reiterating his refusal to speak unless Bobrisky attended.
The panel was met with confusion as VDM resisted pressures to testify, warning he wouldn’t reveal any information until Bobrisky appeared. His stance highlighted the importance of both parties being present for a fair and transparent process.
Implications of VDM’s Refusal to Testify
VDM’s refusal to testify underscores the challenges of addressing allegations through public hearings when key figures are absent. The credibility of such processes hinges on the participation of all involved parties, ensuring a balanced and informed discussion. Without Bobrisky’s presence, the hearing lacked the necessary context to evaluate the claims fully.
This incident raises questions about the effectiveness of investigative panels in resolving disputes involving high-profile individuals. Critics argue that the absence of one party can undermine the integrity of the proceedings, leaving unresolved doubts and potential miscarriages of justice. As the case progresses, stakeholders are encouraged to prioritize transparency and inclusivity in future hearings.
VDM’s refusal to testify without Bobrisky highlights the need for comprehensive participation in public investigations. Ensuring the presence of all parties involved is crucial for delivering justice and maintaining public trust in such processes.
