Security, Activism and the Burden of Proof
By Mukhtar Ya’u Madobi
The foremost responsibility of any government is to protect the lives and property of its citizens, maintain public order and safeguard the territorial integrity of the state. In fulfilling these constitutional obligations, governments rely on security institutions—the military, police, intelligence agencies and other law enforcement bodies—as the backbone of national defence and public safety.
In Nigeria, where terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, communal violence and organised crime continue to test the resilience of the state, the role of these institutions cannot be overstated. Every day, thousands of security personnel operate under difficult and often life-threatening conditions, making enormous sacrifices in the service of their country.
Those sacrifices deserve recognition.
Yet recognising the commitment of security personnel does not place them above scrutiny. In a democratic society, accountability is indispensable. Allegations of misconduct, corruption, abuse of power or collusion with criminal elements must be investigated thoroughly, and where wrongdoing is established, those responsible should face the full weight of the law.
The challenge arises when grave allegations are presented to the public as established facts without credible evidence to support them.
This concern has once again come to the fore following comments attributed to social media activist Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan (VDM), during the 2026 Annual General Conference of the Nigerian Bar Association in Rivers State.
Speaking on the country’s security challenges, Otse reportedly argued that politics lies at the root of Nigeria’s insecurity and alleged that some government institutions benefit from the persistence of the crisis. More significantly, he accused elements within the military and the police of collaborating with kidnappers and other criminal groups.
According to reports, he alleged that some police officers stationed at highway checkpoints provide criminal gangs with information about travellers, including their identities and movements, thereby facilitating kidnappings and ransom demands.
He was quoted as saying: “The root of insecurity is politics. The government benefits from this. The police benefit. The military men benefit. Since insecurity started, generals get higher pay.”
These are weighty allegations.
There is an important distinction between criticising the performance of security institutions and accusing their personnel of systematic collaboration with criminals. The first is a legitimate exercise of democratic oversight; the second is an allegation of serious criminal conduct that requires credible evidence.
It was therefore unsurprising that a military representative at the conference reportedly cautioned against making allegations that could not be substantiated.
Similarly, the Nigeria Police Force, through its Force Public Relations Officer, CSP Ani Iniedu, invited VeryDarkMan to provide evidence in support of his claims.
Public institutions have both a responsibility to investigate credible allegations and a duty to protect their personnel against unfounded accusations capable of damaging institutional integrity.
The issue is not whether citizens have the right to criticise security agencies—they unquestionably do. The issue is whether individuals with significant public influence should be held to the same standards of accountability they demand from others.
This is not the first time VeryDarkMan has found himself at the centre of controversy over serious allegations against security officials.
He had previously accused Assistant Inspector-General of Police Moshood Jimoh, then overseeing Zone 2 Command, Lagos, of frustrating investigations into high-profile criminal cases, including allegations relating to murder and land disputes.
Following the allegations, the police invited him to substantiate his claims. He did not honour that invitation in Lagos. Instead, both he and the senior police officer were subsequently invited to the Force Headquarters for further engagement.
According to available reports, subsequent investigations cleared the senior police officer Jimoh Moshood of the allegations. Yet despite the reputational implications of the accusations, there appeared to be no further legal consequences for the activist if indeed the claims could not be substantiated.
Read Also:
Another example arose when VeryDarkMan publicly criticised the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) over the interrogation of a retired military officer accused of involvement in an alleged coup plot. After publishing excerpts of the interrogation online, he questioned both the professionalism of the intelligence officers involved and the evidence reportedly linking the retired officer to the alleged offence. His outbursts simply expose security and intelligence services to public ridicule.
Again, citizens have every right to question government actions, especially where national institutions are concerned.
However, allegations touching on national security, senior public officials and ongoing investigations require a high degree of responsibility. Such claims should be supported by verifiable evidence and pursued through appropriate legal and institutional channels.
This is not merely about protecting institutions. It is about protecting the integrity of public discourse.
Where evidence exists, those implicated—regardless of rank or position—must be investigated and prosecuted. Where allegations prove to be false, reckless or malicious, the law should also take its course. Accountability must apply equally to institutions and individuals.
The objective should never be to suppress dissent, investigative journalism or civic activism. Democratic societies depend on robust public scrutiny.
But activism is most effective when it is anchored in facts rather than speculation.
The influence of social media has made this responsibility even more important. Today, an allegation posted online can reach millions of people within minutes. Unfortunately, corrections, clarifications or investigative findings rarely receive comparable attention. Consequently, reputational damage may persist long after allegations have been disproved.
Against this backdrop, the Coalition for Security Awareness and National Stability (CSANS) has previously expressed concern over campaigns it believes unfairly undermine the reputation of security institutions and their personnel.
Whether or not one agrees with every position taken by the coalition, its broader concern deserves consideration.
Public confidence in security institutions is itself an essential component of national security.
The Nigerian Armed Forces, the Nigeria Police Force and the country’s intelligence agencies comprise thousands of dedicated officers and men who continue to confront terrorism, insurgency, banditry and organised crime under extremely challenging circumstances. Their collective sacrifices should not be overshadowed by allegations that remain untested or unsupported.
Equally important, effective policing depends on public cooperation. Communities provide intelligence, report suspicious activities and support law enforcement because they believe security agencies are acting in the public interest.
If that confidence is systematically eroded through unverified accusations, criminal organisations stand to benefit most. Distrust between citizens and security institutions weakens intelligence gathering, hampers investigations and ultimately strengthens those who threaten national security.
This does not mean criticism should cease.
Rather, criticism should be evidence-based, responsible and constructive.
If anyone possesses credible evidence that security personnel are collaborating with kidnappers, terrorists or other criminal networks, such evidence should be presented to the appropriate investigative authorities. Where wrongdoing is established, prosecution should follow without hesitation.
Conversely, allegations that cannot be substantiated should not become accepted public narratives merely because they have gone viral. The rule of law demands that accusations be tested through evidence rather than public sentiment.
Nigeria needs a more mature national conversation about insecurity—one that simultaneously honours the sacrifices of security personnel, demands professionalism and accountability from security institutions, and insists on responsibility from those who shape public opinion.
Activists have a duty to speak truth to power.
Security agencies have a duty to respect citizens’ rights while responding professionally to criticism.
Both are equally bound by the rule of law.
At a time when terrorists, bandits, kidnappers and organised criminal networks continue to exploit every weakness in Nigeria’s security architecture, the country cannot afford an endless war of narratives between security institutions and their critics.
What Nigeria requires today is not louder accusations or defensive denials, but verifiable facts, transparent investigations, institutional accountability and responsible public engagement.
Facts must prevail over speculation.
Evidence must triumph over sensationalism.
Accountability must replace impunity.
And above all, the national interest must always outweigh personal confrontation.
Only by upholding these principles can Nigeria strengthen public confidence in its security institutions, reinforce democratic accountability and build a safer and more secure nation.
Mukhtar Ya’u Madobi is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Crisis Communication (CCC) Abuja.
