Janet Jackson’s best friend slams claims she’ll get millions in divorce – Music News

in Uncategorized
Comments are off for this post.

Janet Jackson’s best friend Gil Duldulao has slammed those who have accused the singer of attempting to make money from her divorce from Wissam Al Mana.

The Rhythm Nation singer hit headlines earlier this month (Apr17) when multiple reports suggested she had separated from the Qatari billionaire, just three months after welcoming their first child, son Eissa, in January (17).

But Gil, who also works as Janet’s creative director, took to his Instagram to hit back after claims that Janet could earn up to $500 million (£397 million) following her split from Wissam garnered “gold digger” remarks from haters.

In a lengthy post captioned “F you”, Gil wrote: “I want to state what I have to say as a friend. Even if there was a possibility that my friend could make 500 mil off of having a child. It’s not in her character to want and or accept 500 mil. It’s character people and she is not the one. She would never accept a pay out or want a pay out.

“That’s the human being I know. So you f**kers that state that – f**k you. That’s not my friend and will never be. Point blank period.”

Gil continued his message to suggest reports about the length of Janet’s marriage were incorrect, adding “she has been married for four years, not five”.

That part of his statement is referring to the reports that when Janet and Wissam married in 2012, the billionaire’s attorneys were still discussing terms of the couple’s prenuptial agreement, in a bid to protect his wealth.

However, Wissam is said to have become impatient with the prenup negotiations, and instead reportedly wrote an agreement which stated he would pay out $500 million if he and Janet split after five years of marriage.

Gil concluded his Instagram post by writing, “So keep trying you a**holes. Goodbye”, and adding a winking face emoji.

He later took to his Twitter page to continue defending his pal, tweeting: “You know how much she’s worth?”

Source link

Share this article