The decision by the Nigerian Bar Association to invite social media activist Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan, to speak at its 66th Annual General Conference has triggered a heated debate within and outside the legal profession, with lawyers divided over whether his participation represented a necessary engagement with ordinary Nigerians or an erosion of professional standards.
Key Highlights
- The NBA invited VeryDarkMan (VDM) to speak on a panel titled “Known Gunmen or Unknown Gunmen” at its 66th Annual General Conference.
- Human rights lawyer Femi Falana, SAN, criticised the invitation, arguing NBA conferences should feature people with relevant expertise.
- Professor Chidi Odinkalu argued the debate distracts from deeper problems in the justice system, including bribery allegations.
- The Nigeria Police Force rejected VDM’s claim that officers pass information about wealthy travellers to kidnappers.
- Dr Monday Ubani, SAN, and Dr Reuben Abati offered more moderate positions, calling for vetting while defending the value of hearing non-lawyers.
VDM featured in a session titled “Known Gunmen or Unknown Gunmen,” where he spoke about insecurity, his experiences interacting with Nigerians affected by violence and what he claimed to have witnessed while engaging communities and victims of insecurity.
His appearance at a conference attended by lawyers and other legal professionals generated criticism from some members of the profession, who questioned the suitability of a social media activist without a legal or recognised security background as a speaker on a subject as sensitive as national security.
Falana Leads the Criticism
The controversy intensified after human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, criticised the decision.
Falana argued that the NBA’s conferences had historically provided platforms for serious intellectual engagement and were not intended to become entertainment events. He said previous conferences featured individuals who had “paid their dues” and possessed the intellectual capacity to engage lawyers on specialised subjects.
His criticism centred largely on the theme of the session in which VDM participated.
Falana maintained that a discussion on national security should ordinarily involve individuals with relevant professional experience, including people who had participated in the country’s security architecture, as well as victims of kidnapping and other forms of insecurity.
His position has resonated with lawyers and members of the public who believe that professional conferences should maintain clear standards concerning the qualifications and expertise of speakers.
From that perspective, VDM’s popularity, ability to mobilise public opinion and experience as an activist do not necessarily amount to expertise in national security.
VDM is not publicly known to have served as a military strategist, intelligence officer, police officer, security studies academic, counterterrorism specialist or national-security lawyer.
His influence has instead been built around social-media activism, public advocacy, confronting institutions and amplifying complaints brought to him by members of the public.
Supporters of the invitation, however, argue that those experiences are precisely what made his contribution relevant.
VDM has repeatedly positioned himself as an activist who interacts directly with ordinary Nigerians, including people who claim to have suffered abuses, insecurity and institutional failures.
His supporters contend that professional institutions cannot afford to isolate themselves from voices emerging from outside traditional academic and professional circles.
VDM himself defended his presence at the conference, stressing that he was not invited to teach lawyers the law.
“I’m not here to teach you people law; I’m here to share experience,” he said.
He argued that insecurity affects ordinary Nigerians and that his contribution was based on experiences gathered from engaging with people affected by violence rather than on an attempt to present himself as a legal expert.
VDM also interpreted some of the criticism directed at him as classism, arguing that people from outside Nigeria’s traditional elite should not be prevented from speaking at prestigious professional gatherings simply because they do not possess conventional credentials.
He maintained that his knowledge of insecurity came from what he had personally witnessed and from his interactions with people affected by violence.
That response has given the controversy another dimension, transforming it from a simple disagreement about qualifications into a wider debate over the changing nature of influence in Nigerian society.
Odinkalu Shifts the Focus
Professor Chidi Odinkalu offered a significantly different perspective from Falana.
Rather than focusing primarily on VDM’s qualifications, Odinkalu questioned what the activist’s growing influence says about the legal profession and Nigeria’s justice system.
Reacting to the controversy, Odinkalu argued that some lawyers appeared more concerned about VDM’s appearance and point of view than about deeper problems confronting the justice system.
He referred to allegations concerning bribery within the legal and judicial systems and criticised what he considered the profession’s reluctance to confront uncomfortable realities, concluding with the phrase, “We refuse to #SmellTheCoffee.”
Odinkalu’s position effectively shifted the focus from VDM to the institutions that have allowed social-media activists to acquire such influence.
The argument is that VDM’s rise cannot be separated from the growing frustration among Nigerians who believe conventional institutions are slow, inaccessible or incapable of responding adequately to their complaints.
For people who believe their grievances are ignored by government agencies, the police or other institutions, social media has increasingly become an alternative avenue for seeking attention.
Activists such as VDM have capitalised on that environment by giving visibility to complaints that might otherwise remain confined to individuals or small communities.
This has created a new form of public authority that does not necessarily depend on academic qualifications, professional titles or institutional positions.
That influence, however, has also generated concerns about accountability.
Testimony, Allegation and Fact
The strongest criticism of VDM’s suitability for discussions involving national security is that personal experience and activism are not substitutes for specialised expertise.
National security involves intelligence gathering, counterterrorism, policing, military strategy, criminal justice, border security, intelligence analysis and the legal framework governing the activities of security agencies.
A person may have firsthand experience of insecurity without possessing the technical knowledge required to analyse the causes, structure or operational dimensions of national security.
This distinction became particularly relevant after allegations concerning security personnel and kidnapping networks were raised in connection with the discussion.
The Nigeria Police Force rejected an allegation attributed to VDM concerning officers allegedly passing information about wealthy travellers to kidnappers and challenged him to provide evidence.
The police response reinforced concerns about the dangers of discussing sensitive security matters without sufficient evidence or independent verification.
For critics, the episode illustrates why professional forums dealing with national security must distinguish between testimony, allegation and established fact.
A claim does not become evidence because it is made by a popular activist, just as a person does not automatically become an expert because he has a large social-media following.
At the same time, critics of the NBA’s decision have been challenged by another argument: professional expertise should not become a barrier preventing the legal profession from hearing directly from Nigerians who experience the consequences of insecurity and institutional failure.
Read also:
- VDM Hits Back at Femi Falana Over NBA Invitation, Accuses Lawyers of Classism
- Police Challenge VeryDarkMan to Prove Claim Checkpoint Officers Feed Kidnappers With Information
- Controversy As NBA Bestows Honour on VeryDarkMan in Rivers
A Middle Ground?
Dr Monday Ubani, SAN, offered a more moderate position, reportedly expressing no fundamental objection to the inclusion of different voices while emphasising the need for proper vetting and fact-checking of speakers.
That position provides a potential middle ground in the dispute.
The NBA does not necessarily have to choose between experts and ordinary citizens.
A professional conference can feature a security scholar explaining counterterrorism policy, a lawyer discussing national-security law, a retired security officer explaining operational challenges and an activist providing the perspective of citizens affected by insecurity.
The important issue is that each speaker’s role and area of expertise should be clearly defined.
Dr Reuben Abati also defended the broader principle of bringing people such as VDM into professional conversations, arguing from the sociology-of-law perspective that lawyers have a responsibility to listen to the people they represent.
His argument is based on the premise that lawyers cannot properly understand the justice system without understanding how ordinary Nigerians experience it.
That position has strengthened the case for including non-lawyers in legal conferences, particularly at a time when social-media platforms have become increasingly important in shaping public perceptions of justice, policing and government accountability.
Two Forms of Authority
The controversy has consequently exposed a deeper tension within Nigerian society.
Traditional institutions continue to derive authority from professional qualifications, years of training and institutional legitimacy.
Social-media activists derive influence from public engagement, accessibility, visibility and their ability to mobilise large audiences almost instantly.
The legal profession represents one of the country’s established centres of authority, while VDM represents a newer form of public influence that operates largely outside conventional institutions.
His appearance at an NBA conference therefore carries significance beyond the individual activist.
It demonstrates how far social-media influence has penetrated Nigeria’s traditional professional spaces.
However, influence and expertise remain different forms of authority.
A person can be highly influential without being professionally qualified in the subject being discussed.
Conversely, a highly qualified professional can possess enormous knowledge while struggling to communicate effectively with the public.
The challenge for the NBA is therefore not necessarily whether outsiders should be invited to its conferences, but how such invitations are structured and communicated.
If VDM was invited to provide the perspective of an activist who has interacted with victims and ordinary Nigerians, his inclusion can be defended as an attempt to broaden the conversation.
If he was expected to provide technical or authoritative analysis of national security, the criticism concerning his qualifications becomes considerably stronger.
The distinction is important because professional associations have a responsibility to maintain credibility while remaining responsive to society.
VDM’s supporters have also challenged the legal profession to examine why social-media activists have become so influential.
They argue that Nigerians would not increasingly turn to personalities such as VDM if conventional institutions were perceived as sufficiently accessible and effective.
That argument does not establish that every claim made by an activist is correct, but it raises questions about public confidence in institutions.
The legal profession, like other Nigerian institutions, is therefore facing a changing information environment in which citizens can bypass traditional gatekeepers and take complaints directly to millions of people through social media.
The consequences are significant.
An allegation that once might have reached a few dozen people can now reach millions within hours.
That creates opportunities for accountability but also creates risks when claims are inaccurate, exaggerated or unsupported.
This is why the responsibility must extend to both sides.
The NBA must ensure that its conferences maintain intellectual and professional standards while remaining open to voices from outside the profession.
VDM and other social-media activists, on the other hand, must recognise that influence carries an obligation to verify allegations, distinguish personal experiences from established facts and provide evidence when making serious accusations.
A Divided Online Reaction
The reactions online have reflected the same divide.
Critics have described VDM’s appearance as evidence that professional institutions are becoming increasingly driven by social-media popularity, while supporters have portrayed his invitation as a sign that traditional gatekeepers can no longer determine whose voice deserves to be heard.
Some social-media users questioned why lawyers who had spent years studying law should be listening to an activist without conventional professional qualifications, while others argued that VDM’s grassroots experience provided a perspective that lawyers and academics might not ordinarily encounter.
One of the recurring arguments from his supporters has been that “the lawyers have the books” while VDM “has the streets,” with the two forms of knowledge serving different purposes.
Others argued that the controversy itself demonstrated the disconnect between Nigeria’s professional elite and ordinary citizens.
The dispute has also generated criticism of VDM’s conduct and communication style, with some arguing that his confrontational approach and history of controversial public interventions are inconsistent with the decorum traditionally associated with high-level professional gatherings.
His defenders counter that his unconventional style is precisely what distinguishes him from establishment figures and allows him to communicate with Nigerians who may feel alienated by formal institutions.
What the Controversy Reveals
Ultimately, the VDM-NBA dispute is less about whether a social-media activist can physically stand before lawyers and more about what professional institutions should represent in a rapidly changing society.
Falana’s argument rests on professional standards and specialised expertise.
Odinkalu’s position focuses attention on the failures and credibility problems that have helped activists acquire influence.
Ubani’s intervention points towards stronger vetting and a balance between different voices.
Abati’s position emphasises the importance of listening to the public and understanding the social realities surrounding the law.
VDM, meanwhile, insists that his contribution was based on experience rather than academic credentials and rejects the suggestion that only members of Nigeria’s professional elite should have access to such platforms.
There is validity in each of these positions, but there is also a clear line that should not be blurred.
A social-media activist can provide valuable testimony without being a national-security expert.
A lawyer can possess professional expertise without having the lived experience of insecurity.
A security professional can understand intelligence operations without necessarily understanding how ordinary Nigerians perceive the justice system.
A serious conference should be capable of accommodating all three perspectives without pretending that they are interchangeable.
The NBA may therefore have succeeded in doing something it did not necessarily intend: it has forced the legal profession to confront the growing power of voices outside its traditional structures.
Whether the invitation was an example of progressive engagement or misplaced judgement will remain a matter of debate.
What is beyond dispute is that VeryDarkMan has become influential enough to enter one of Nigeria’s most prestigious professional spaces—and the reaction to his presence has exposed a much larger argument about who controls public discourse in Nigeria.
The old establishment still possesses credentials, institutions and professional authority.
The new social-media establishment possesses something equally powerful: the attention of millions.
The challenge for both is to prove that authority and influence can coexist with competence, evidence and responsibility.
For the NBA, that means opening its doors without lowering its standards.
For VDM, it means using the microphone without allowing popularity to substitute for proof.
