Crossdresser Idris Okuneye, aka Bobrisky, has denied claims of paying the Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Femi Falana and his son rapper, Falz, any amount to seek pardon for him.

Bobrisky made this known on his Instastories shortly after the Falanas gave him a 12-hour ultimatum to aplogise for claims he made in a viral audio released by activist Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan.


It is worth noting that VeryDarkMan released audio recordings where Bobbrisky claimed to have spoken to Falz to request his father’s help in securing a presidential pardon for him with a payment of N10 million.

In another audio released by VeryDarkMan, the person claiming to be Bobrisky alleged that he had paid N5 million upfront to a Senior Advocate of Nigeria to obtain a Federal Government pardon for charges filed against him by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

As a result, the Falanas demanded an apology from Bobrisky within 12 hours. However, Bobrisky insisted he was not the person in the viral audio clip.

He said, "I, Okuneye Idris, aka Bobrisky, didn’t give Falz or his dad any money for a pardon. As a matter of fact, no penny was given to them. I have said this before, and I will say it again. The person who published an audio online should take full responsibility for what he posted in public. My lawyer will respond to any further information the public wants about this ongoing issue trending on social media.”

In another post, he wrote, “To whom it may concern: In reply to the two letters in circulation from the Law Firm of the Falanas. I would like to state for the record and pending the official reply from my counsel, state for the avoidance of doubt that I, Okuneye Idris, aka Bobrisky, did not publish any defamatory statement or statements concerning the learned SAN and his son Falz.

It is in the public domain pursuant to my solicitor’s letter dated the 27th day of September 2024 that I have denied any knowledge of what VDM published.

I stand by my express denial and put the matter to strict proof and advise that whoever has been defamed should hold the publisher of the defamatory content, and my fundamental rights to privacy of my communications should be respected and protected. Best”