The Nigerian Bar Association’s decision to invite social media activist Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan (VDM), to speak on insecurity at its 66th Annual General Conference has triggered a heated debate over expertise, lived experience and the role of public voices in professional spaces.
VDM appeared as a panellist during a session titled “Known Gunmen or Unknown Gunmen” at the NBA conference in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, where he shared his experiences documenting violence and visiting communities affected by killings and attacks. His appearance has since drawn criticism from some members of the legal profession, while others have defended the decision to include a prominent grassroots voice in a discussion about insecurity.
What Happened At The NBA Conference
The NBA’s 66th Annual General Conference was held in Port Harcourt from August 21 to 28, 2026, under the theme “Beyond Limits ’26.” The event brought together lawyers, judges, Senior Advocates of Nigeria, policymakers and other prominent figures from across the country.
On Tuesday, VDM joined a panel discussing Nigeria’s security challenges. He spoke about his experiences visiting communities affected by attacks and argued that the recurring description of perpetrators as “unknown gunmen” should be questioned.
VDM also pointed to the impact of insecurity on members of the legal profession, citing the abduction of Kebbi State High Court Judge Justice Faruku Hassan Bunza.
Bunza was abducted from his residence in Bunza Local Government Area on July 26, shortly after returning from Sokoto State. He was released on August 3 after spending about a week in captivity.
During his appearance, VDM also made allegations concerning police checkpoints, claiming that some officers pass information about travellers to kidnappers and bandits.
The Nigeria Police Force subsequently invited him to provide evidence to support the allegations, describing the claims as unsubstantiated and damaging to the institution. VDM, however, maintained his position and said he was prepared to present his evidence in court if the matter resulted in legal proceedings.
Falana Questions VDM’s Invitation
The strongest criticism of VDM’s appearance came from human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana.
Speaking on Channels Television’s Sunrise Daily, Falana questioned the NBA’s decision to feature a social media personality in a discussion involving national security.
Falana argued that NBA conferences had traditionally provided a platform for intellectual engagement with people who had established expertise and experience relevant to the subjects being discussed.
He criticised the idea of bringing people without professional involvement in the security sector to address specialised security issues and said past NBA conferences were not “circus shows.”
His comments quickly became part of the wider online debate, with some commentators arguing that the NBA should maintain a higher threshold for selecting speakers on specialised subjects.
Other Legal Voices Criticise The Decision
Falana was not the only legal figure to question VDM’s participation.
Dr Chidi Julius Lloyd, Chairman of Emohua Local Government Area and a former law lecturer at the University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, also criticised the NBA’s decision.
In a statement titled “Shame on the NBA,” Lloyd argued that the association’s conference should focus on legal excellence, professional ethics, constitutionalism and issues directly affecting the justice system.
He also criticised comments directed at security agencies during the panel session and described VDM’s invitation as a misplaced priority.
The criticism reflects a broader concern among some legal professionals that highly specialised discussions should feature speakers with demonstrable expertise in the relevant field.
Why Some People Defend VDM
Despite the criticism, VDM’s participation has also received support. Defenders of the invitation argue that insecurity is not solely a technical subject for security professionals.
It is also a reality experienced by ordinary Nigerians, including people who may encounter violence, displacement, kidnapping and other security challenges. VDM has defended his appearance on precisely those grounds.
Rather than presenting himself as a legal or security scholar, he said he was at the conference to share his experiences.
His argument was that the session was specifically about “Known Gunmen or Unknown Gunmen” and that his contribution came from what he had seen and experienced while visiting communities affected by violence.
Former National Human Rights Commission Chairman Prof. Chidi Odinkalu was also among those whose comments added another dimension to the debate, questioning whether the criticism of VDM was distracting from deeper problems within Nigeria’s legal and judicial systems.
Expertise Vs Lived Experience
At the centre of the controversy is a bigger question: What qualifies someone to contribute to a discussion about insecurity? For critics of the invitation, the answer lies largely in professional expertise. They argue that national security is a specialised area requiring knowledge of policy, intelligence, policing, defence and security administration.
For VDM’s supporters, however, expertise should not be limited to academic qualifications or official positions. They argue that people who document attacks, visit affected communities and interact with victims can provide perspectives that may not always emerge from institutional discussions.
That disagreement has turned the VDM controversy into something bigger than one speaker. It has raised questions about whether professional associations should remain focused primarily on established experts or create room for unconventional voices when discussing issues that affect the wider public.
Police Invitation Adds Another Layer
The controversy intensified after the Nigeria Police Force responded to VDM’s comments about checkpoint operations.
The Force asked him to provide evidence supporting his allegations that some officers relay information about travellers to criminals.
VDM subsequently said he would honour the invitation but maintained that he would rather present his evidence in court than submit it directly to the police.
The exchange shifted part of the conversation from whether VDM should have been invited to whether the allegations he made at the NBA conference could be substantiated.
What The Controversy Means For The NBA
The dispute has placed the NBA in an uncomfortable position. On one side is the argument that its annual conference should preserve the intellectual and professional standards expected of Nigeria’s foremost legal association.
On the other is the argument that the Bar cannot discuss national problems in isolation from the people experiencing those problems outside formal institutions.
The NBA had already assembled a diverse lineup for the 2026 conference, including former Liberian President George Weah, former Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, Prof. Chidi Odinkalu and Finance Minister Taiwo Oyedele.
Against that background, VDM’s inclusion has become particularly contentious because of the contrast between his social-media activism and the traditional professional profile of many conference speakers.
Ultimately, the controversy may force the NBA and similar professional bodies to examine how they define expertise in an era where social media personalities increasingly influence public conversations.
For critics, VDM’s invitation represents a departure from the professional standards expected at an elite legal gathering. For his supporters, it demonstrates that serious conversations about insecurity should not exclude people who have witnessed its consequences firsthand.
The disagreement is therefore unlikely to end with the 2026 conference. It has opened a wider debate about professionalism, public engagement and whether lived experience should have a place alongside formal expertise when Nigeria’s most pressing problems are being discussed.
