Panel finds Bobrisky had phone, TV during jail term, seeks prosecution of VeryDarkMan for ‘libel’

An independent investigative panel set up by the federal government has revealed that Idris Okuneye, the social media celebrity better known as Bobrisky, enjoyed “extraordinary privileges” during his jail term.

In 2024, the crossdresser was sentenced to six months in prison for naira abuse.

During the period, activist VeryDarkMan shared a purported audio recording in which Bobrisky claimed that human rights lawyer Femi Falana and his son Falz sought a presidential pardon for her in exchange for N10 million.

The recording also sparked claims that she did not serve her sentence in prison. However, Bobrisky denied the recording and threatened legal action against VeryDarkMan for alleged defamation.

The allegations prompted Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, minister of interior, to establish a panel to investigate the matter.

The panel’s findings, submitted to Tunji-Ojo, revealed that Bobrisky received privileges at both the medium security and maximum security custodial centres in Kirikiri, Lagos, privileges described as “far beyond what is permissible” under the law.

According to the report, the privileges extended to the use of mobile phones in both custodial centres.

The panel also found that while at the medium security custodial centre, Bobrisky stayed in a private cell equipped with a personal toilet and bathroom, a carpeted floor, television, refrigerator, humidifier and enhanced lighting.

The report added that meals were regularly supplied by her brother and sister-in-law.

“Okuneye Idris was on self-feeding during his time at the Maximum Custodial Centre. The panel has not yet ascertained if this was officially applied for,” the report stated.

Bobrisky was also allowed to receive visits from relatives and friends as often as she wished, a privilege not granted to regular inmates.

While at the maximum security custodial centre, Bobrisky’s private cell was fitted with wallpaper, a large bed, a carpet, a humidifier, and a soundproofed door. An adjoining decorated room contained a television.

The panel noted that further investigation is needed to determine why the door was soundproofed and whether it was connected to phone use or any other activity.

It added that a fellow inmate who had previously worked in the chief warder’s office was assigned to attend to Bobrisky’s personal needs.

Bobrisky was also reportedly allowed to receive visitors as often as she wanted and in any number, with meetings held inside the office of the officer-in-charge, a privilege not extended to regular inmates.

The report further revealed that in both custodial centres, Bobrisky was transported in the Lagos state command controller’s official vehicle, with the controller personally accompanying her.

The panel recommended that the Department of State Services (DSS) investigate whether Bobrisky, directly or through intermediaries, bribed officials of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) or the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCS).

It added that Bobrisky should be prosecuted if the allegations are confirmed.

The panel also advised the NCS to sue Bobrisky for defamation over her claims that she bypassed the prison system, claims the panel said damaged the institution’s reputation.

The panel further recommended the prosecution of VeryDarkMan for “data privacy violations, incitement, and libel over the dissemination of unverified claims that defamed government officials and agencies”.

“Libel: VeryDarkMan should be charged under Sections 373–375 of the Criminal Code for disseminating unverified claims that defamed government officials and agencies,” the report stated.

“Incitement: He should also be charged with incitement under the Cybercrimes Act, which prohibits the spread of false information intended to erode public trust in institutions.

“Data Privacy Violations: The DSS should be requested to investigate whether VeryDarkMan unlawfully intercepted Bobrisky’s phone conversations. If proven, he may face charges under Section 37 of the Cybercrimes Act for illegal communication interception.” (TheCable)