VDM Apologises to Security Agencies Over Controversial NBA Conference Remarks

The Apology After the Storm

Social commentator Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan, has apologised to Nigeria’s security agencies over controversial remarks he made during the Nigerian Bar Association’s 66th Annual General Conference in Port Harcourt.

Speaking in a video released on Friday, Otse acknowledged that his description of military, police, immigration and customs personnel as “unknown gunmen” was unfair to security personnel who are genuinely risking their lives to protect Nigerians.

He particularly referenced soldiers deployed against Boko Haram and other security threats, saying he had reconsidered how his words could affect personnel serving in dangerous locations.

Otse said his original intention was not to accuse every member of the security agencies of wrongdoing. Rather, he said he was attempting to draw attention to what he described as corruption, information leaks and sabotage by some individuals within the security architecture.

But he accepted that the manner in which he delivered the message made it appear as though he was generalising.

The activist subsequently apologised to the Chief of Defence Staff, the police, customs and immigration authorities, as well as families of security personnel who had died in the line of duty.

A Conference Speech That Became a Bigger Debate

The apology comes after Otse’s appearance at the NBA conference generated significant debate within and beyond the legal profession.

His invitation itself had already divided opinion.

Some lawyers questioned whether a social media commentator was an appropriate speaker at a major professional gathering of lawyers, particularly on a subject as sensitive as national security. Others defended the invitation, arguing that the NBA conference can provide room for perspectives from outside the traditional legal profession, especially on issues affecting society and the administration of justice.

The controversy therefore extends beyond one controversial statement.

It raises a broader question about what the NBA wants its annual conference to represent.

A professional conference does not necessarily have to be a closed room where only lawyers speak. Issues such as insecurity, governance, technology, human rights and public policy frequently intersect with the work of lawyers.

But opening the platform to wider voices also brings another responsibility: the need for speakers to approach highly sensitive subjects with sufficient care, evidence and precision.

That tension was visible in the reaction to Otse’s appearance.

Senior Advocate of Nigeria Femi Falana criticised the decision to have Otse speak on specialised issues, arguing that experienced professionals should handle such discussions. Otse subsequently defended his invitation, saying his perspective was based on experience rather than academic credentials.

Where Free Expression Meets Professional Responsibility

Otse’s apology does not erase his criticisms of alleged misconduct within the security agencies.

He continues to maintain that there are individuals within the security system involved in corruption and other forms of wrongdoing. Those allegations, however, remain allegations and should not be treated as established facts without evidence and due process.

What has changed is his acknowledgement that the language he used could unfairly place individuals who had no connection to the alleged misconduct under the same label.

That distinction matters.

Freedom of expression permits robust criticism of public institutions, particularly where questions of accountability and public safety are involved. But criticism becomes more difficult to defend when broad language appears to attribute alleged wrongdoing to an entire institution or class of personnel.

For the NBA, the episode also presents an institutional question.

If the Bar wants its conferences to engage society beyond the courtroom, how should it balance openness to unconventional voices with the intellectual standards expected of a leading professional association?

And if controversial voices are invited precisely because they can challenge conventional thinking, should the expectation be that they speak freely, or that the platform imposes a higher duty of care?

Those questions are likely to outlive the apology itself.

The immediate controversy may have cooled, but the debate over who gets a seat at the NBA’s table and what responsibility comes with that seat remains very much alive.