NBA AGC 2026 And VDM’s Claims: Free Speech Must Not Replace Evidence -By Adewole Kehinde

There has been considerable debate over the decision to invite social media activist, Very Dark Man (VDM), as a panelist at the 66th Annual General Conference of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), holding in Port Harcourt, Rivers State.

The controversy is understandable. The Nigerian Bar Association is one of the country’s most respected professional bodies, while its Annual General Conference provides a platform for serious conversations on law, justice, governance, human rights and national development. The participation of a controversial social media personality in such a gathering will naturally attract public attention and provoke questions about the relevance, credibility and evidentiary basis of the views expressed.

However, the more important issue is not simply whether VDM should have been invited. The real question is whether allegations made on such a prestigious platform should be subjected to the same standards of evidence, fairness and responsibility expected in any serious public discourse.

Freedom of expression is fundamental to democracy. Criticism of government institutions and security agencies is equally legitimate. But freedom of expression does not transform allegations into facts, and popularity on social media cannot substitute for evidence.

One of the statements attributed to VDM at the conference was that:

“These gunmen are known, they are not unknown. They are the police, the military, customs, immigration officers and others.”

He reportedly went further to describe an alleged practice in which security personnel at checkpoints identify motorists who can pay money and then communicate with criminal elements at subsequent checkpoints.

This is an extremely serious allegation.

If VDM possesses credible evidence that serving personnel of the Nigeria Police Force, the military, the Nigeria Customs Service, the Nigeria Immigration Service or other security organisations are directly coordinating with kidnappers, bandits or other criminal groups, such evidence should be made available to the appropriate investigative authorities and, where appropriate, the public.

But without names, locations, dates, case files, documentary evidence, communications, financial trails, credible witnesses or other verifiable facts, such sweeping claims remain allegations.

There is a fundamental difference between saying that “some security personnel may have been accused of misconduct or criminal collaboration” and declaring that “the security personnel at checkpoints are the gunmen”.

The former is capable of investigation; the latter is a sweeping generalisation that risks unfairly indicting thousands of honest officers and personnel who perform dangerous duties every day.

The Nigerian Police Force, like every large institution, is not immune from individual misconduct. Where an officer is found to have engaged in extortion, collusion with criminals, abuse of office or any other criminal activity, such an officer should face investigation and appropriate sanctions. But individual wrongdoing must not automatically become institutional guilt.

Indeed, the same principle should apply to every institution in Nigeria.

If a lawyer is accused of professional misconduct, it would be unfair to declare that all Nigerian lawyers are corrupt. If a journalist is accused of publishing false information, it would be reckless to conclude that the entire media profession is dishonest. If a politician is convicted of corruption, nobody should reasonably conclude that every politician is a criminal.

Why then should an entire security establishment be collectively labelled as part of the criminal networks terrorising Nigerians without compelling evidence?

The allegation becomes even more problematic because Nigeria’s security personnel operate at enormous personal risk. Police officers, soldiers and other security personnel are routinely deployed to highways, forests, communities and other dangerous locations to protect citizens. Some have lost their lives in the course of that duty.

Criticising security agencies is necessary where criticism is justified. But responsible criticism should distinguish between institutional failures, individual misconduct and deliberate criminal conspiracy.

The Burden of Proof

Another statement attributed to VDM was that the Inspector-General of Police, the Chief of Army Staff, senior security commanders and the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, “know these things.”

That assertion also requires evidence.

It is one thing to argue that the country’s security leadership should be aware of security challenges, criminal networks and allegations of misconduct within the system. It is quite another to claim that senior commanders “know that serving security personnel are involved in criminal activities” and have deliberately allowed such activities to continue.

The latter is a grave allegation capable of damaging reputations and undermining public confidence in national security institutions. It therefore cannot responsibly be established merely by assertion.

Unless evidence is produced showing that these senior officials had specific knowledge of identified criminal activities and consciously permitted or participated in them, it would be unfair to treat the allegation as established fact.

This is where the principle of evidence becomes particularly important.

The burden of proof should not disappear simply because an allegation is made against a government institution. Neither should public figures be condemned simply because a popular activist makes an assertion before a large audience.

If there is evidence, let it be presented.

If there are officers involved, identify them through proper investigative processes.

If there are particular checkpoints where criminal collaboration has allegedly occurred, identify the locations and circumstances.

If there are communications between security personnel and criminal groups, investigators should examine them.

If money changed hands, financial records and transaction trails can help establish the facts.

If witnesses exist, their testimony can be investigated.

That is how serious allegations are transformed into credible findings.

The NBA Platform Deserves Responsible Debate

The NBA’s decision to provide VDM with a platform may be defended on the grounds that conferences should accommodate diverse voices, including voices that challenge established institutions.

There is merit in that argument.

Democracy benefits from uncomfortable conversations. Institutions should not be afraid of criticism. Lawyers, academics, activists, journalists and citizens must be able to question government and security agencies without intimidation.

But an open platform should not mean an evidence-free platform.

The NBA, as a professional association founded on the principles of law and justice, has an especially important responsibility to promote fact-based discourse. The rule of law is fundamentally about evidence, due process and fairness.

It would therefore be unfortunate if the controversy surrounding VDM’s participation were reduced to whether he is popular or controversial. The more important question is whether the claims made during the conference can withstand scrutiny.

A social media audience may accept an allegation within seconds. The law does not work that way.

Security Agencies Must Also Welcome Scrutiny

At the same time, security agencies must understand that public criticism is part of democratic accountability.

The Police and other security organisations should not dismiss every allegation against their personnel as an attack on the institution. Where credible allegations arise, they should be investigated transparently.

The Nigeria Police Force, in particular, must continue strengthening internal accountability mechanisms, improving professional standards, investigating allegations of extortion and misconduct, and ensuring that personnel deployed to checkpoints understand that their authority exists to protect citizens rather than exploit them.

Such measures would strengthen public confidence and make it easier to distinguish genuine allegations from exaggerated or politically motivated claims.

But accountability must be reciprocal.

Citizens deserve protection from police misconduct, but police officers also deserve protection from reckless collective accusations.

From Viral Claims to Verifiable Facts

Nigeria’s security crisis is too serious to be reduced to viral soundbites.

Kidnapping, banditry, terrorism, armed robbery and other violent crimes have caused immense suffering across the country. Tackling them requires intelligence, community cooperation, technology, effective policing, military operations, judicial support and public trust.

It also requires responsible public discourse.

When an activist makes a serious allegation, the appropriate response should not necessarily be censorship or condemnation. The appropriate response should be: “show us the evidence.”

That is not an attempt to silence anyone. It is a demand for accountability.

Similarly, when security agencies deny an allegation, they should be willing to subject their claims to scrutiny and demonstrate that complaints are investigated and erring personnel sanctioned.

Ultimately, the debate surrounding VDM’s appearance at the NBA conference should become bigger than VDM himself.

It should become a conversation about the standard of public discourse in Nigeria.

We must defend the right of citizens to speak. We must also defend the right of institutions and individuals not to be collectively condemned by allegations that have not been substantiated.

The Inspector-General of Police, the Chief of Army Staff, the National Security Adviser and other senior security commanders should be held accountable where credible evidence establishes wrongdoing. But accusing them of knowing about criminal collaboration by security personnel, without producing evidence of such knowledge, risks turning suspicion into presumed guilt.

That is neither justice nor responsible activism.

The fight against insecurity requires courage, but it also requires accuracy. Nigeria needs activists who will ask difficult questions, security agencies that will provide credible answers, journalists who will verify allegations, lawyers who will insist on evidence, and citizens who will resist the temptation to accept every sensational claim simply because it is trending online.

The message should be clear: criticise institutions, investigate wrongdoing and expose corruption, but bring the evidence.

That is the standard Nigeria deserves.

Adewole Kehinde is a public affairs analyst based in Abuja. Email: kennyadewole@gmail.com X: @kennyadewole