Dammy Krane has expressed his dissatisfaction with VDM (Vibes Digital Music) following a court order issued by his lawyer, Femi Falana. The order reportedly addresses issues related to his contract and treatment by the music label.
In his statement, Dammy Krane claimed that VDM did not fulfill its obligations or treat him fairly during their partnership. He emphasized that he feels wronged and that the court order is a step towards seeking justice. Dammy Krane’s public comments reflect his frustration and desire to ensure that his rights as an artist are upheld in the music industry.
Further developments regarding this situation and the specifics of the court order are anticipated as Dammy Krane continues to advocate for his interests.
In an intriguing development, Nigerian singer Dammy Krane has criticized internet personality Verydarkman (VDM), who was recently ordered by the court to retract his defamatory statements against Femi Falana and his legal team. Dammy Krane’s remarks come in the wake of VDM’s court ruling, which underscores the ongoing tensions and disputes within the entertainment community.
Dammy Krane’s condemnation of VDM suggests a broader sentiment about accountability and the impact of public statements in the digital age. As the situation unfolds, it highlights the importance of responsible communication, especially among public figures. Further updates may clarify the specifics of the allegations and the implications for both parties involved.
On October 15, 2024, Dammy Krane expressed his thoughts on the ongoing court case involving Verydarkman (VDM) through an Instagram post. He stated that VDM “did not do right by him” after advocating for his release during the singer’s reported arrest by Davido in August 2024.
At that time, VDM had publicly pleaded for Dammy Krane’s release, but the singer’s recent comments suggest he feels betrayed by VDM’s actions or lack thereof following the court’s decision. This latest development adds another layer to the ongoing situation and highlights the complexities of relationships within the entertainment industry, especially amid legal disputes.
In the video he posted, Dammy Krane remarked, “I feel like God is using this Falana case to show VDM that he didn’t do right by me because if it was another person, he would have looked into the evidence.” This statement reflects his belief that the ongoing legal issues involving VDM serve as a testament to how he was treated. Krane’s comments suggest that he feels VDM failed to consider the full context of the situation, potentially indicating a sense of betrayal and disappointment in their relationship. The ongoing dispute underscores the challenges artists face in navigating the complexities of support and advocacy within the entertainment industry.
Dammy Krane accused Verydarkman (VDM) of favoritism, claiming he did not thoroughly investigate Krane’s situation before advocating for him. He stated, “He would have looked into the case, where I stated that Davido owed me money for songs. It was simply things he posted online that I spoke of, so VDM should have looked into it. Even in the Dangote case, it was what the police said that I repeated; he didn’t look into the evidence before coming out to talk.”
Krane emphasized that VDM engaged in “selective activism based on favoritism” and expressed frustration over being asked to apologize for what he believes is the truth. He explained, “Later you’d say I should apologize and say I lied, and I was trying to tell him that I couldn’t apologize for saying the truth because they have no evidence against me. I was only illegally destined.”
He further elaborated on the potential consequences of issuing an apology, saying, “If I had apologized, they’d have had evidence to carry me to court. That’s what they’re doing with him; after he apologized, now it’s 500 million,” referring to VDM’s current legal challenges. This commentary sheds light on the complicated dynamics of support and accountability within the entertainment sphere, as well as the potential risks of public advocacy without due diligence.
