GTBank Must Tread Softly In Its Case Against VeryDarkMan As It Is Tantamount To Killing The Tsetse Fly On The Scrotum -By Isaac Asabor

In African oral tradition, proverbs are not just witty expressions, they are repositories of ancestral wisdom. One of the most evocative proverbs warns: *“When a tsetse fly perches on the scrotum, you don’t kill it with a slap.”* This seemingly humorous but deeply philosophical proverb speaks volumes about the need for caution and strategic thinking when dealing with sensitive situations. It is from this backdrop that I view the unfolding confrontation between Guaranty Trust Bank (GTBank) and social media activist VeryDarkMan (VDM), born Martins Vincent Otse.

GTBank, one of Nigeria’s most formidable financial institutions, appears to be gearing up for a confrontation that could spiral into a public relations disaster if not handled with tact. The nature of this dispute, arising from VDM’s accusations of financial misconduct or inefficiencies by GTBank, has ignited discussions far beyond the banking halls, touching the nerve of the social media generation and evoking deep-seated frustrations among ordinary Nigerians about how they are treated by banks and corporations.

VDM, never one to mince words or shrink from controversy, took to his massive social media platforms to lambast GTBank over what he described as suspicious banking practices. Whether his assertions are accurate or not, one thing is clear: VDM commands an army of loyal followers who see him as a voice for the voiceless, a modern-day folk hero challenging corporate and governmental impunity.

In response, GTBank appears to be exploring legal avenues to defend its corporate integrity, a move that on the surface seems both understandable and justified. However, herein lies the danger, the metaphorical tsetse fly on the scrotum. While GTBank has the legal muscle and financial resources to pursue a lawsuit, the optics of such a move could be deeply counterproductive in today’s emotionally charged digital climate.

In the eyes of the public, especially on social media, GTBank is the towering Goliath while VDM is the defiant David. Regardless of the legal merits of the bank’s position, any aggressive move against VDM would be viewed as a corporation attempting to silence a people’s advocate. And in the court of public opinion, especially in a country like Nigeria where distrust for institutions runs deep, David often wins, not because of his accuracy, but because of what he symbolizes.

What GTBank risks is not just a legal tussle, but an erosion of brand equity and trust. Today’s consumers, especially millennials and Gen Z, care about how brands respond to criticism. They align more with values, activism, and social justice than with brand longevity or market share. If mishandled, this issue could turn into a tsunami of customer dissatisfaction, trending hashtags, boycott threats, and even account closures.

GTBank has, over the years, built a reputation for innovation, customer experience, and sleek branding. From being one of the first Nigerian banks to embrace digital banking to redefining aesthetics in banking halls, GTBank has been a frontrunner. But reputation, like the skin of the scrotum, is fragile, once bruised, it may never return to its pristine state.

Reputation crises have shown time and again that it is not the issue itself that damages a brand, but how the issue is handled. A tone-deaf response can make a molehill into a mountain. United Airlines’ PR disaster over forcibly removing a passenger, or Pepsi’s tone-deaf protest ad with Kendall Jenner, are reminders that even global brands can fumble when they fail to read the room.

GTBank’s executives must ask themselves: what is the ultimate objective? To silence criticism or to restore customer trust? Because if it is the former, they risk aggravating the issue; if it is the latter, they must take a more thoughtful route.

The wisest course of action in a situation like this is strategic engagement, not courtroom combat. GTBank should seize the moment to display emotional intelligence, openness, and humility. Engaging VDM directly, perhaps even arranging a private meeting, would be a powerful demonstration of transparency. If the bank is convinced of its innocence, it has nothing to fear from dialogue. On the contrary, transparency will enhance its image.

Such a move would not only disarm VDM but also earn GTBank public respect. It would show that it listens, that it is human, and that it is not too big to respond to the cries of the average Nigerian, who, after all, are its customers.

VDM may be controversial, but he represents a larger trend, the rise of digital watchdogs. In a society where official regulatory bodies often sleep on their duties, citizens are increasingly turning to influencers to call out misconduct. Whether we like it or not, VDM has become one of those voices, and brands must learn how to coexist with this reality.

Trying to silence such voices through legal threats often backfires. It paints the brand as authoritarian, unresponsive, and above critique. GTBank would do well to learn from other institutions who tried this approach and ended up with egg on their faces. Transparency, patience, and strategic communication have become the new tools of corporate diplomacy.

Globally, many companies have been targeted by social media activists and have emerged stronger, not by fighting back with lawsuits, but by listening and adapting. When Nike faced backlash for endorsing Colin Kaepernick, many expected it to buckle under pressure. Instead, the company doubled down on its values and gained not just loyalty but increased sales. The key lesson here is that values matter. Standing firm on the right side of history pays off.

GTBank must see this moment not as a threat, but as an opportunity to demonstrate that it is a brand that listens, learns, and leads by example. If the bank can show transparency in its operations, explain any misunderstandings, and adopt a tone of empathy rather than superiority, it will not only come out unscathed but may also earn a new legion of supporters.

Against the backdrop of the foregoing views, it is germane to return to the proverb,  and opine that the wisdom in not swatting the tsetse fly on the scrotum is profound. It teaches that rash action can lead to self-destruction, even when the cause seems just. Instead, one must find a clever, careful way to solve the problem. GTBank’s executives must internalize this wisdom. Legal action should be the last resort, not the first impulse.

VDM is not the problem; he is a symptom of a wider issue, one of growing customer dissatisfaction, poor complaint resolution mechanisms, and a lack of transparent communication. Fighting him won’t fix the problem; engaging with him might.

In the court of public opinion, tact and wisdom often win the day. And in this digital-powered era which has in turn digitally empowered consumers, brands must learn that it is not enough to be right; you must also be wise.

Against the foregoing backdrop, it is expedient to ask, “Does GTBank want to be right, or does it want to be respected?” That is the real question.