Human rights lawyer and activist Dele Farotimi has declared that social media activist Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan, has effectively replaced the judiciary as the hope of the common man in Nigeria.
Farotimi made the controversial remarks while reacting to the recent debate surrounding VeryDarkMan’s invitation to the Nigerian Bar Association’s 66th Annual General Conference in Port Harcourt.
The lawyer argued that VeryDarkMan’s growing influence should not be viewed simply as the rise of a social media personality but as evidence of deeper problems within Nigeria’s justice system.
According to Farotimi, a society with functional police and judicial institutions would not create the conditions that allow individuals such as VeryDarkMan to become alternative channels through which ordinary citizens seek justice.
He described the activist as a reflection of the weaknesses within the country’s institutions, arguing that attacking the messenger would not resolve the problems responsible for his popularity.
Farotimi said the emergence of VeryDarkMan should instead force Nigerians, particularly members of the legal profession, to examine why citizens increasingly turn to social media personalities when they have grievances.
The activist has built a significant following through videos in which he intervenes in disputes, highlights alleged injustices and calls attention to complaints brought to him by members of the public.
His approach has attracted both strong support from Nigerians who believe he gives ordinary people a voice and criticism from those who question his methods and the boundaries of his activism.
Farotimi's comments come shortly after VeryDarkMan participated in a panel discussion at the NBA's annual conference, an appearance that generated considerable debate within and outside the legal profession.
VeryDarkMan subsequently criticised the legal profession, arguing that law was no longer the noble profession it was traditionally portrayed to be.
The comments sparked reactions among lawyers and other Nigerians, with some questioning why a social media activist was given a platform at a major professional gathering of lawyers.
Farotimi, however, argued that the controversy should not be reduced to whether VeryDarkMan deserved an invitation to the conference.
Instead, he said the more important question was why Nigerians had reached a point where they could feel more confident seeking help from an online activist than from formal institutions.
The lawyer warned that the phenomenon could become more widespread if the country's justice system continued to lose public confidence.
He predicted that more personalities similar to VeryDarkMan could emerge because the conditions that created his influence remain largely unresolved.
Farotimi also raised concerns about the possibility of increasingly dangerous forms of vigilante-style justice if citizens completely lose faith in the police and courts.
He argued that the emergence of such figures should serve as a warning to those responsible for maintaining Nigeria's justice and law-enforcement institutions.
The lawyer therefore urged Nigerians to look beyond VeryDarkMan's personality and examine the institutional failures reflected by his growing popularity.
He maintained that attempts to attack or silence the activist would not eliminate the underlying grievances that continue to drive Nigerians towards alternative avenues for seeking redress.
The debate also highlights the changing relationship between social media and traditional institutions in Nigeria, where influential online personalities can mobilise millions of people around individual cases within hours.
VeryDarkMan's large online following has given him considerable public visibility and enabled him to pressure institutions and individuals over allegations brought to his attention.
Supporters see this as evidence that social media can empower citizens who might otherwise struggle to attract attention from authorities.
Critics, however, have raised concerns about due process, public accusations and the potential consequences of allowing online pressure to substitute for formal investigations and judicial proceedings.
Farotimi's argument does not suggest that VeryDarkMan has legally replaced Nigeria's courts, but rather that he believes the activist has become an alternative source of hope for citizens who have lost confidence in formal justice institutions.
The distinction is important because the courts remain the constitutionally established institutions responsible for adjudicating disputes and determining legal rights and liabilities.
Nevertheless, the lawyer's remarks have reopened a major conversation about public confidence in Nigeria's judiciary and the reasons some citizens increasingly seek help outside traditional institutions.
The issue is particularly significant in a country where delays in legal proceedings, concerns about access to justice and public complaints about institutional accountability have remained recurring subjects of debate.
Farotimi believes that fixing those problems requires collective action and meaningful institutional reform rather than focusing exclusively on individual personalities.
He warned that if the underlying problems remain unresolved, the country could see the emergence of even more powerful alternative figures claiming to provide justice outside established systems.
The controversy surrounding VeryDarkMan has therefore evolved beyond a debate about one social media activist and into a broader conversation about the state of Nigeria's institutions.
For Farotimi, VDM's popularity is ultimately a mirror reflecting the frustrations of a society that increasingly feels its formal systems are failing to meet its expectations.
As reactions to his comments continue, the debate is likely to persist over whether figures such as VeryDarkMan represent a dangerous challenge to established institutions or an unavoidable consequence of citizens searching for justice and accountability.