Nigeria’s VDM Debate: Are We Policing the Messenger?

When serious allegations trigger condemnation instead of investigation, Nigeria must ask a bigger question: where is accountability?

By Princely Onyenwe | Editorial Desk

Nigeria has once again found itself debating the messenger instead of confronting the message. The controversy surrounding social commentator Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan (VDM), has raised a much bigger question than whether he deserved an invitation to speak at the Nigerian Bar Association’s 66th Annual General Conference in Port Harcourt.

It has raised a fundamental question about the state of accountability in Nigeria: when a citizen makes disturbing allegations about the security system, should the nation concentrate more on the credibility of the messenger or on establishing whether the allegations are true?

VDM was invited to participate in a panel discussion on insecurity at the NBA conference. His invitation attracted criticism from senior lawyer Femi Falana, SAN, who questioned the decision to place a social media personality without conventional security expertise on a specialised national-security platform. That criticism deserves consideration.

The NBA is a professional institution, and its conferences should maintain high intellectual and professional standards. However, professional expertise should not automatically exclude the voices of citizens whose experiences bring another dimension to a national conversation.

VDM himself made the distinction at the conference, explaining that he was not there to teach lawyers law but to share his experiences of insecurity. The NBA subsequently presented him with a recognition award for participating and sharing those experiences. That decision may be debated, but it does not answer the larger question.

Security is not experienced only inside police headquarters, military formations, intelligence offices or government ministries. It is also experienced by the Nigerian kidnapped on a highway, the family forced to pay ransom, the farmer afraid to return to the farm and the community that watches helplessly as criminals operate. It is experienced by journalists, activists and ordinary citizens who document what happens outside official institutions.

VDM may not be a security professional, and that distinction matters. But lived experience and public testimony can still contribute to a national conversation about insecurity. Listening to a citizen does not mean endorsing every claim that citizen makes.

That distinction is essential to this controversy. During the NBA conference, VDM made serious allegations about the security architecture, including claims that some police officers manning checkpoints on major highways identify wealthy travellers and pass information about their identities and movements to kidnappers and bandits, allegedly facilitating ransom kidnappings.

He also made broader accusations against security agencies, alleging that some personnel benefit from the persistence of insecurity. These are grave allegations. They cannot responsibly be treated as established facts without evidence.

The Nigeria Police Force subsequently invited VDM to provide evidence supporting his claims. The Force described the allegations as serious and said allegations against individual officers who may have compromised their duties would be investigated and, where established, the officers could face disciplinary measures and prosecution.

At the same time, the police objected to condemning the entire institution on the strength of an unsubstantiated public statement.

That response deserves to be examined carefully. The police are right that serious allegations require evidence. An activist cannot convict police officers, soldiers or any other public officials on social media. A claim does not become a fact merely because it is repeated passionately, attracts millions of views or comes from a personality with a large following.

But there is another side to the accountability equation. The question is not whether VDM should automatically be believed. The question is whether his allegations should be properly investigated. Those are two very different questions.

If credible evidence exists, it should be examined. If wrongdoing is established, those responsible should face the law. If the allegations are false, exaggerated or deliberately fabricated, that should equally be established through a credible process. The objective should be neither the protection of VDM nor the protection of the institution. The objective should be the discovery of the truth.

VDM has since challenged the police to take him to court, saying he is prepared to present his evidence there rather than submit it during police questioning. His position does not remove his responsibility to substantiate serious allegations, but it moves the controversy into a more important territory: what process should be used to test evidence when the allegations concern members of the very institution being accused?

This is where Nigeria needs to be particularly careful. An allegation involving police officers should not automatically be dismissed because it was made by a controversial activist. At the same time, the mere existence of an allegation should not be treated as proof of police misconduct. A credible investigation must be capable of examining both possibilities.

The Presidency has also entered the controversy. President Bola Tinubu’s Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Sunday Dare, criticised the NBA for providing its platform to VDM to make what the Presidency described as reckless accusations against the police and security agencies.

That reaction demonstrates how far the controversy has travelled. What began as a disagreement over a conference invitation has now become a wider debate about the relationship between citizens, professional institutions and government security agencies.

But there is another important perspective. Professor Chidi Odinkalu and others have defended the principle of allowing unconventional voices into national conversations, particularly when those voices represent experiences that formal institutions may not always hear. That position deserves consideration too.

A democracy does not become stronger by inviting only people who already belong to established professional circles. The challenge is to create a forum where unconventional voices can be heard without allowing unverified allegations to become established truth.

That is precisely why the NBA controversy should not be reduced to a choice between VDM and his critics. Falana is entitled to insist on professional competence. The Presidency is entitled to object to allegations it considers reckless.

The police are entitled to demand evidence. VDM is entitled to defend his allegations and seek due process. The NBA is entitled to decide who participates in its conference. But none of these positions should prevent an independent examination of facts.

Nigeria’s public discourse has too often allowed serious allegations to become social-media battles rather than matters for impartial investigation. A citizen speaks, an institution reacts, politicians take sides, activists defend the citizen, officials defend the institution, social media explodes, and eventually the original allegation becomes secondary to the controversy surrounding it.

The country does not suffer from a shortage of accusations. It suffers from a shortage of credible, transparent and timely mechanisms for determining the truth. That is the deeper crisis exposed by the VDM controversy.

Nigeria is already dealing with insecurity on a scale that has generated enormous public anxiety. Reports citing data from SBM Intelligence indicate that thousands of Nigerians were kidnapped between July 2025 and June 2026, with millions of dollars reportedly paid in ransom during the period.

The above figures underline why allegations concerning kidnapping networks and possible institutional failures cannot simply be dismissed as social-media drama.

At the same time, the difficult conditions under which many security personnel work must also be acknowledged. The police have pointed to officers who confront kidnappers, terrorists and other violent criminals under dangerous and difficult conditions. The existence of misconduct by some officers, if established, should never become an excuse for condemning thousands of officers who perform their duties honourably.

This is why accountability must be individualised. If a particular officer collaborated with criminals, that officer should be investigated and prosecuted. If there is no evidence against the officer, the allegation should not become a permanent sentence through social media. An entire institution should neither be condemned collectively nor shielded collectively.

The same principle applies to activists. VDM must be held to the same standard of accountability that he demands from public institutions. Freedom of expression does not turn an allegation into established fact. Serious accusations, particularly those involving security personnel and potentially criminal conduct, require credible evidence.

An activist should not be allowed to convict people on social media, just as a government institution should not dismiss a serious allegation simply because it came from a controversial activist. Nigeria must therefore reject both extremes. There must be a middle ground built around evidence, investigation, due process and accountability.

The deeper question is whether institutions can investigate themselves in a manner that commands public confidence. If the police are accused of misconduct, Nigerians should be able to trust that credible allegations will be investigated impartially. Where necessary, oversight institutions, courts or other competent bodies should be able to examine the evidence. The issue should not be buried simply because investigating it may be uncomfortable for the institution involved.

This is not an argument against the police. It is an argument for a police institution strong enough to investigate and remove bad elements within its ranks without allowing the misconduct of a few to destroy public confidence in the many.

A credible institution should not fear scrutiny. Indeed, exposing genuine wrongdoing strengthens an institution because it separates those who abuse public trust from those who faithfully serve the public.

Nigeria must also stop choosing between order and accountability. Defending security agencies does not mean defending every action of every security officer, just as defending citizens’ rights does not mean endorsing every allegation made by an activist.

A mature democracy can defend its institutions while investigating them. It can respect its security personnel while holding individual officers accountable. It can protect freedom of expression while demanding evidence. It can listen to unconventional voices without accepting every statement from them as established truth. That is the Nigeria we should be building.

The growing influence of social-media personalities has permanently changed Nigeria’s information environment. Millions of Nigerians now receive information from voices outside traditional media, political structures and government institutions. That reality cannot simply be wished away. The answer is not to silence unconventional voices. The answer is to build institutions strong enough to withstand scrutiny.

If VDM has evidence, let the evidence be examined. If the evidence establishes wrongdoing, let those responsible face justice. If the evidence does not support his allegations, let that conclusion be established transparently. That is how serious democracies respond to serious allegations.

The VDM controversy should therefore become more than another social-media confrontation. It should serve as an opportunity for a serious national conversation about accountability, institutional credibility and the protection of citizens.

Nigerians deserve security and justice. They deserve functional institutions, good governance, social welfare, quality healthcare, economic stability and an environment where public resources are managed transparently and responsibly.

Most importantly, Nigerians deserve institutions that do not wait for a social-media personality to force them into action before addressing legitimate concerns. The responsibility for good governance cannot rest on the courage of a few outspoken citizens. It must be embedded in the institutions of the Nigerian state, backed by systems capable of receiving complaints, testing evidence, correcting wrongdoing and delivering justice.

So, which way is Nigeria going? If allegations are false, they should be disproved through credible investigation. If they are true, the perpetrators should be exposed and prosecuted. If there is evidence, it should be examined. If justice is the objective, due process must prevail.

Nigeria must learn to distinguish between defending an institution and defending misconduct, just as it must distinguish between protecting free expression and endorsing unproven allegations.

The country cannot build a stable democracy on outrage alone, nor can it build one on silence. It needs institutions that investigate allegations professionally, courts that deliver justice without fear or favour, security agencies that protect citizens, journalists who scrutinise power, activists who substantiate their claims and citizens who refuse to surrender their right to demand accountability.

The question is not whether VDM should be believed. The question is whether his allegations should be investigated. If justice is truly the objective, Nigeria must stop policing the messenger long enough to examine the message.