This is a satirical piece. All quotes are real. The format is not. The purpose is not mockery, but reflection on how silence shapes timelines, how memory shifts under scrutiny, and who gets believed when stories clash.
Case No. 2025/SD vs DA
Presiding Judge: Internet Memory
Clerk of Court: Screenshots
Bailiff: Cached Blogposts
Jury: People Who Still Read
This is the fourth post in a series on silence, memory and narrative control, told through the lens of the Stella Damasus and Daniel Ademinokan story.
The first looked at how public bias shaped the dragging. Read Post 1.
The second unpacked Daniel’s long silence and sudden statement. Read Post 2.
The third questioned what his post revealed and what it carefully avoided. Read Post 3.
This one flips the script completely. Not to mock, but to test what happens when both stories are called to the stand. Because when silence breaks, the question is not just what was said. It is who gets believed and why.
Opening Statement
In June 2025, Daniel Ademinokan broke his silence. Loudly. His post came years after their separation and divorce, and months after Stella Damasus’s interview, just long enough after the public had moved on.
He wrote these lines:
“You claimed in that little interview with your echo chamber that you ‘found out about the divorce on YouTube.’ Lie.”
“I came with footnotes.”
“I packed my son, my peace, and my entire life, and walked out the front door.”
“You know what you did. And more importantly, you know the truth.”
So we ask: Was there a lie, or was her version simply more coherent and earlier?
Exhibit A — The Interview (2024)
In her public interview, Stella Damasus said:
- She saw stories about her marriage online, on YouTube.
- She was shocked
- She called Daniel
- Even then, she did not realise the marriage was truly over
- It was only after he told her directly, “I’m not coming back,” that it sank in
She did not say she discovered she was divorced on YouTube. She said she realised her marriage had ended. Not legally. Emotionally. Publicly.
Exhibit B — The Email (29 July 2021)
Almost a year after Daniel’s departure in September 2020, Stella wrote:
“I have decided to move forward with the divorce process.”
“In September 2020, when you decided to leave our home, separate our family, and then called me to say that you were not coming back, it became clear that our marriage was over.”
She followed up with a polite reminder days later.
Let the record show:
- He left
- She initiated the legal process
- The communication was respectful and deliberate
Exhibit C — Daniel’s Post (June 2025)
In the Instagram statement he released, Daniel claimed:
“Lie.”
“Who filed for divorce? You do realize that’s public record.”
“Don’t rewrite history just because the internet has a short attention span.”
“Wale and Linda are still alive in Dallas. We all had these conversations.”
“You know what you did.”The Metaphors and the Proverb
He came with footnotes, but left the main thesis blank.
The post carried metaphors, a proverb, and some emails, but no clarity on what “she did,” and no timeline that matched the outrage.
- “Living rent-free in your narrative.” A metaphor suggesting she is fixated on him. But whose narrative are we reading now?
- “I packed my son, my peace, and my entire life, and walked out the front door.” Peace isn’t literal luggage, but the phrasing frames his exit as total and moral even though the divorce filing didn’t start until she did.
- “Silence is not guilt. Distance is not weakness.” Statements of posture, not explanation.
- “I came with footnotes.” He shared emails, yes. But without stating what points those emails were meant to prove, footnotes are just noise.
- Proverb: “Na the beginning of fight person dey know. Nobody dey know how e go end end.” A warning delivered as wisdom. A performance, not peace.
Cross Examination: Mr. Ademinokan
Prosecution: Sir, when did you leave the shared home?
Daniel: September 2020.Prosecution: Did you file for divorce?
Daniel: No.Prosecution: Did she call you?
Daniel: Yes.Prosecution: And during that call, did you say the marriage was over?
Daniel: Eventually, yes. I said I wasn’t coming back.Prosecution: So when she said, “I found out my marriage had ended on YouTube,” she meant what?
Daniel: I assume she meant that’s when it felt final.Prosecution: So where’s the lie?
Daniel: She twisted facts with confidence.
Prosecution: Which facts?
Daniel: She knows what she did.
Prosecution: We will take that as a poetic objection and move on.Cross Examination: Ms Damasus
Defence: Ms Damasus, were there issues in the marriage?
Stella: Yes. I said every marriage has issues.Defence: Did you think the separation was final?
Stella: No. As far as I knew, he was supposed to travel and return. I didn’t get the memo on time that it was over over. YouTube shockingly delivered this news to me.Defence: Did you reach out?
Stella: Yes. I called him. We spoke. Only later did he tell me directly, “I’m not coming back.” That’s when I knew.Defence: When did you initiate the divorce?
Stella: July 2021. After I waited. After I emailed. After he made his decision clear.Defence: Did you ever claim you were legally unaware?
Stella: No. I said the emotional finality landed with that call and the way it showed up online.Closing Argument
This is how public memory gets tested, not by volume, but by consistency.
She said: the moment it became real was when she saw it online, and he told her, “I’m not coming back.”
He called it a lie.But the timeline shows:
- He left
- She called
- He said he was not coming back
- She filed
- He stayed silent
- Until she spoke
He entered a plea of “Lie.”
But the sequence of events stands.
The timeline adds up.Verdict
This court does not rule on theatrics. It weighs sequence, language, and clarity.
And here is what holds:• She spoke first.
• He responded later.
• The facts were not new, just reframed.The timeline wasn’t rewritten. It was remembered.
Case closed. Court adjourned.
All parties are free to go. Preferably offline.