‘You Can’t Say All Military Are Corrupt’: Military Fires Back at VDM

The Nigerian military has challenged social media activist Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan (VDM), after he made sweeping allegations about the role of security agencies in Nigeria’s worsening insecurity at the Nigerian Bar Association’s annual conference in Port Harcourt.

The exchange took place on Tuesday during a panel discussion on Nigeria’s security crisis, where VDM accused government officials and security agencies of benefiting from prolonged insecurity. He also alleged that security personnel know the identities or locations of people behind violent attacks but have failed to act decisively.

VDM went further, arguing that there were no genuinely “unknown gunmen” in Nigeria and naming the military, police, immigration and customs authorities in making his point. He also questioned the effectiveness of security checkpoints along major highways, alleging that information gathered from motorists could potentially be passed to criminal groups involved in kidnapping. He did not present evidence at the session to substantiate those allegations.

The comments drew a direct response from military representatives on the panel. G.I.O. Ukpung, Director of Legal Services of the Nigerian Navy, said it was unfair to make blanket accusations against the entire military without evidence. She compared the claim to saying that all lawyers were corrupt and urged anyone with credible evidence of misconduct by military personnel to submit it through the appropriate channels for investigation.

A Nigerian Army representative, Colonel G.C. O’Heary, also acknowledged that wrongdoing can occur within the military but rejected the idea that the conduct of individual personnel should be used to condemn the entire institution. Military personnel, he stressed, continue to risk and lose their lives in the fight against insecurity.

The intervention appeared to prompt VDM to soften his position. According to reports from the conference, he apologized to the military and said he may have generalized his earlier comments. He maintained, however, that his broader concern was about the conduct and accountability of security institutions in the face of persistent insecurity.

The confrontation came during a particularly outspoken appearance by VDM at the NBA conference. He argued that insecurity was fundamentally political and claimed that ordinary Nigerians had become the “sacrificial lambs” while some officials and security personnel benefited from increased security spending. Those claims were presented as allegations rather than established findings, and no evidence was produced at the session to prove that government or military officials were deliberately sustaining insecurity for financial gain.

VDM also called for improved welfare for security personnel, arguing that poorly paid or inadequately supported officers could become vulnerable to corruption and manipulation. At another point, he called for easier access to firearms for citizens, saying the security agencies were understaffed and could not protect everyone.

His appearance was notable because the activist was speaking to an audience dominated by lawyers and alongside senior security officials, including Inspector-General of Police Olatunji Disu. VDM said he had not been invited to lecture lawyers on legal matters but to share his experiences of witnessing violence and its aftermath.

The NBA subsequently presented VDM with a recognition award after his appearance, a development that added another layer to an already controversial session. His invitation had generated debate among some lawyers and members of the public, with critics questioning whether a social media activist was an appropriate speaker at a major professional conference, while supporters argued that his firsthand exposure to victims of violence gave him a perspective worth hearing.

The latest confrontation is not VDM’s first clash with Nigerian security institutions. Earlier this month, the Nigeria Police Force invited him to substantiate separate allegations against Assistant Inspector-General of Police Moshood Jimoh. The police said freedom of expression and criticism of public institutions were protected, but warned that serious allegations should be formally presented and investigated rather than settled through social-media campaigns.

That distinction is becoming increasingly important as social media personalities assume a larger role in Nigeria’s accountability debates. Public criticism of the military, police or government is legitimate in a democracy, and institutions should be able to withstand scrutiny. But allegations involving corruption, criminal conduct or deliberate complicity in insecurity carry consequences and require evidence if they are to move beyond commentary into credible accusations.

The dispute at the NBA conference ultimately exposed two competing pressures: Nigerians' growing frustration with insecurity and the need for public figures to distinguish between documented wrongdoing and sweeping claims. The military's response does not establish that security agencies are free from corruption or misconduct, just as VDM's allegations do not establish that the institutions are responsible for sustaining insecurity. What matters now is whether specific claims can be independently investigated, and whether institutions that demand evidence are equally prepared to act when credible evidence is placed