VDM to Police: “Want My Evidence? Charge Me to Court”
Social media activist Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan (VDM), has responded to the Nigeria Police Force after it demanded evidence to substantiate his allegations concerning the conduct of some police officers at checkpoints across the country.
VDM, in his response, maintained that he would not voluntarily hand over the evidence he claims to possess, insisting that the police would have to take him to court if they wanted him to produce it.
“No evidence for you from me. You can only get it if you charge me to court,” VDM said in the response attributed to him.
His reaction follows a statement by the Nigeria Police Force challenging him to provide evidence after he alleged at the Nigerian Bar Association Conference in Port Harcourt that some police officers stationed at checkpoints along major highways provide information about travellers to kidnappers and bandits.
VDM had alleged that some officers identify travellers, particularly individuals perceived to be wealthy, and relay information about their identities and movements to criminal groups, potentially facilitating their abduction for ransom.
The allegation generated widespread discussion because of the seriousness of kidnapping across Nigeria and the responsibility of security agencies to protect travellers on major highways.
The Nigeria Police Force subsequently rejected the allegation, describing it as unsubstantiated and unfair to officers serving across the country.
In a statement issued on August 27, 2026, Force Public Relations Officer CSP Ani Iniedu said allegations of such magnitude required credible evidence.
The Force specifically invited VDM to produce whatever evidence formed the basis of his claims, including information capable of establishing that police personnel at checkpoints identify wealthy individuals and transmit details about their movements to kidnappers.
According to the police, any credible evidence submitted would be treated with urgency and thoroughly investigated.
The Force maintained that police officers deployed to checkpoints are expected to prevent crime, detect criminal activities and protect citizens rather than facilitate kidnapping.
It also pointed to the risks faced by officers in different parts of the country, noting that police personnel have themselves been attacked, ambushed and killed by terrorists, kidnappers and other violent criminal groups.
Police stations, formations and operational assets have equally been targeted by criminals.
The Force therefore argued that sweeping accusations against its personnel could unfairly damage the reputation of officers who continue to perform their duties under difficult and dangerous conditions.
However, the police made it clear that individual officers found to have compromised their responsibilities would not be protected.
According to the Force, any personnel found guilty of misconduct would face appropriate disciplinary action and applicable legal consequences.
VDM’s latest response, however, appears to shift the confrontation from a public demand for evidence towards the possibility of a legal process.
By insisting that the police should charge him to court if they want his evidence, the activist has effectively challenged the Force to take formal legal action over his allegations.
The development adds another dimension to the controversy surrounding his original comments.
Rather than immediately submitting whatever material he claims to possess to police investigators, VDM’s position suggests that he would prefer to present such evidence through a judicial process if proceedings are instituted against him.
Whether the Nigeria Police Force will take that step remains unclear.
No legal action should be assumed unless formally announced by the relevant authorities.
The dispute nevertheless raises important questions about public accountability, evidence and confidence in Nigeria’s security institutions.
Kidnapping for ransom remains a serious security concern, particularly for Nigerians travelling on highways in different parts of the country.
Against that background, any credible allegation that security personnel may be collaborating with criminal groups deserves careful investigation.
If evidence establishes that individual police officers are deliberately providing information about travellers to kidnappers, such conduct would constitute a serious breach of public trust and require appropriate legal and disciplinary action.
At the same time, accusations against security personnel must be supported by evidence before they can be presented as established facts.
This distinction remains particularly important in the current controversy.
VDM has made an allegation concerning the conduct of some police personnel, while the Nigeria Police Force has denied the allegation and demanded evidence.
Neither the allegation nor the police response alone determines whether misconduct occurred.
Credible evidence and an impartial investigation would be necessary to establish the facts.
The Nigeria Police Force has said it remains committed to transparency and accountability and will investigate credible allegations of misconduct involving its personnel.
It also encouraged Nigerians with evidence of wrongdoing by police officers to submit such information through appropriate channels to enable investigation and necessary action.
The Force, however, cautioned against making sweeping accusations capable of undermining public confidence in national security institutions without sufficient evidence.
It argued that legitimate criticism can strengthen accountability but maintained that unsubstantiated allegations can damage public trust and affect the morale of officers carrying out legitimate duties.
VDM’s response now leaves attention focused on what happens next.
The police could maintain their demand that he provide evidence, invite him for further engagement or pursue other lawful options available to the institution.
VDM, for his part, has indicated that he is prepared for the matter to move into the judicial arena if the police want access to the evidence he says he possesses.
The controversy has therefore developed beyond the original remarks at the NBA Conference.
It has become a wider debate about the responsibility of citizens to substantiate serious allegations, the obligation of security agencies to investigate credible accusations against their personnel and the role of the courts in resolving disputes involving claims of misconduct.
For Nigerians concerned about insecurity, the most important issue ultimately goes beyond the public exchange between VDM and the police.
Any credible information capable of exposing collaboration between security personnel and criminal networks should be properly investigated, while officers should equally be protected from allegations that cannot be supported by evidence.
For now, VDM is standing by his position and has thrown the challenge back to the Nigeria Police Force: if the authorities want the evidence behind his claims, he says they should take him to court.
Whether the Force will accept that challenge remains to be seen.
