Yes. Yes it absolutely can for any definition of velocity we would like to use.
Wait wait hang on Mr. VgAcid(lovely name I know), doesn't this contradict <PERSON>'s theory of relativity? You look new what do you know?
Well, let us stepback. What is 'relative velocity'? Choose a frame for an observer: measure a physically established object's velocity. There you have it. The problem is... this depends upon your frame.
Now certainly, when it comes to inertial frames, nothing exceeds the speed of light. But when it comes to accelerating frames, it does. In fact, the speed of light isn't even c!
<PERSON> himself mentioned this! To quote him, "[...]But at the same time it turned out that one of the basic principles of that theory, namely, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, is valid only for space-time regions of constant gravitational potential" (<PERSON> paper "The Speed of Light and Statics of Gravitational Field", seen here: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol4-trans/107) [Uses is $c=1$ units]
In fact, we know names for coordinates of this: Rindler Coordinates. In this, $dx/dt=ax$ where a is the proper constant acceleration relative to an inertial frame.(evaluated here https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33816/does-the-speed-of-light-vary-in-non-inertial-frames).
Or what about one of the most famous space-times, the Schwarzschild space-time? Let us choose Schwarzschild coordinates... then, we have $dr/dt = 1-2GM/r$(evaluated here https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/302279/how-does-the-speed-of-light-vary-throughout-a-black-hole)
However, this is an artifact of our 'coordinates' if you want. 562
But really, what else does measuring velocity amount too? You line up a ruler, find your object, tick the time. The only viable this can be done is locally. Now in THIS sense, can we only find that the speed of light can't be broken and that the speed of light is always c. But then it amounts less to a 'relative velocity' of some distant observer. The problem is that we can't cheat with free vectors like we do in both Galilean relativity and Special Relativity, and there in lies the problem. Velocity is not uniquely defined in General Relativity globally. In a curved space, when you try to 'transport' your vector, it depends on what path you take.
So after all this, we actually come to the conclusion that any sensible measurement of something that acts faster then light can't exist, since the only one that makes sense is the local measurement of light. So actually, relative velocity always less then the speed of light. At the expense of no globally applicable definition. You can try to use a more globally applicable definition of cosmological velocities with that of a 'proper distance' but you then get galaxies that can move at greater then light speed. Personally, I think the trade off is worth it. 562