The Nigerian Presidency has vowed to prosecute social media critic Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan (VDM), after he was accused of circulating a fake, AI-generated audio of President Bola Tinubu. The audio, shared online, allegedly featured Tinubu’s voice claiming that insecurity in Nigeria would persist because Nigerians did not vote for him in 2023.
Tinubu’s media aide, Bayo Onanuga, condemned the act in a post on his official X handle, describing it as “an egregious abuse of the social media platform.” He insisted that VDM must face the full weight of the law, calling him the “conveyor and disseminator” of the fake audio.
It was later noted that the alleged audio did not appear in VDM’s published videos. This raised questions about the accuracy of the claims and left room for debate over whether the situation stemmed from a misunderstanding, misattribution, or deliberate action. The development has prompted discussions on both sides, with some emphasizing the need for accountability in the use of digital platforms and others highlighting the importance of protecting the right to criticize government policies.
VDM reacted angrily to the accusations, blasting Bayo Onanuga and accusing the government of ignoring worsening insecurity. In a video posted on his social media page, he said: “President spokesman Bayo, you are a very stupid old man. I’m not trying to insult you, but look at the meaning of stupid. That’s what you represent. That is who you are. I swear to God, you are so daft, and this is the reason why I said President Bola Ahmed Tinubu should not come back in 2027 because all the people that operate under him don’t use their brains. You are so stupid. I know say una don get me for mind and think say part of an agenda. You see this audio, I will not defend it. You no dey shame.”
He went further to question why the Presidency had remained silent over the recent abduction of teachers and students in Oyo State, alleging that one of the kidnapped teachers had been killed while the victims remain in captivity even on Children’s Day. “Bandits went into a school in Oyo State, they carried three teachers, one man, two women, they carried students. One of the teachers was backing an infant child. Few days later, there was a report that one of the teachers was beheaded. Bayo Onanuga, where is your comment on that? As I speak to you today, it is Children’s Day. Those children are still in an unknown location. I want to see wetin una wan do. It’s only stupid people that will believe that video.”
The controversy has sparked wider debate about free speech in Nigeria, the dangers of AI deepfakes, and the government’s approach to handling critics. Supporters of VDM argue that he is being unfairly targeted for his activism, while others believe the Presidency is justified in cracking down on potentially destabilizing misinformation.
Across social media, fans of VDM have rallied behind him. On X, many praised his boldness, with comments such as “Fear this guy. Brain work dey on” and “If you see people ganging up against a single person, that person is always right.” On Instagram, users applauded his refusal to back down, saying “Best response from VDM so far. I love the fact he vowed never to talk about Seun Kuti again. Bro maintain the stand.” Some even elevated his status, declaring “In this country, na VDM we de respect pass president.” On TikTok and Facebook, debates raged over whether the audio was genuinely linked to Tinubu or fabricated using AI tools, with digital rights advocates warning about the dangers of manipulated clips.
This case also highlights Nigeria’s growing struggle with misinformation in the digital age, where AI-generated content can blur the line between truth and fabrication. Legal experts suggest that if prosecuted, the case could fall under Nigeria’s Cybercrimes Act, which criminalizes the dissemination of false information capable of causing public mischief.
The clash between VDM and the Presidency has become one of Nigeria’s most trending political controversies, raising questions about whether the government is defending truth or suppressing dissent. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how Nigeria handles digital misinformation and criticism of political leaders, while also underscoring the growing influence of social media activism in shaping national discourse.
