VeryDarkMan’s Lawyer Demands Probe, Prosecution Of Tinubu’s Aide, Onanuga, Over ‘False Comments, X£nophobic Conduct’

 

VeryDarkMan’s Lawyer Demands Probe, Prosecution Of Tinubu’s Aide, Onanuga, Over ‘False Comments, Xenophobic Conduct’

Abubakar, in a statement, accused Onanuga of abandoning his pro-democracy credentials to defend what he called “one of the worst governments in the country’s history.”

Alawyer, Marshal Abubakar, representing social media influencer, Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan, has demanded the investigation and prosecution of Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser on Information and Strategy to President Bola Tinubu, over “false, misleading and provocative” comments against his client.

Abubakar, in a statement, accused Onanuga of abandoning his pro-democracy credentials to defend what he called “one of the worst governments in the country’s history.”

The lawyer said he was “appalled” by a tweet posted by Onanuga on May 27, 2026, in which he called for VDM to be prosecuted over a fake audio clip that used President Bola Tinubu’s voice.

Abubakar recalled Onanuga’s history as a journalist and pro-democracy activist during the military era, noting that the presidential aide once resisted dictatorship and censorship under former military ruler Ibrahim Babangida.

According to him, it was disappointing that the former editor and National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) activist has now become “a pathetic defender” of alleged government repression.

“It is disheartening that a man who risked detention, exile, and death to confront tyranny and elected to resign his position as editor of Concord magazine rather than apologize to former President Babangida in April1992 when the accuracy and correctness of his piece titled ‘has Babangida hi up’ and which he termed subversive, the proud author of the News cover of November 1997 titled, “The Chagouris: ‘How A Family Hijacked Nigeria’, the great Onanuga! Master of guerrilla journalism, the voice that once indicted power and corruption now defend it; officially, dutifully and without compromise…,” Abubakar stated.

Abubakar further argued that Nigerians have a constitutional right to criticise government policies and demand political change without intimidation.

Quoting Lord Justice Sedley in the 1999 Redmond-Bate v DPP judgment, he said, “Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence.”

He also cited several Nigerian court decisions, including IGP v ANPP (2007) and Arthur Nwankwo v The State (1985), to support the argument that freedom of expression and protest should not be criminalised.

Abubakar said that the administration of President Tinubu has lost public confidence and accused government officials of attempting to suppress dissenting voices.

The lawyer called on the presidency to publicly distance itself from Onanuga’s comments and impose sanctions on him for allegedly misleading the public.

He said, “So therefore, Mr Bayo must face the consequences of circulating and authenticating falsehood, spread through electronic means against the very government and people he was employed to defend- for the sake of clarity, (1) the Presidency must distance itself from the embarrassing declarations of Mr Bayo Onanuga and (2) met out the appropriate sanction against a state official that deliberately misinformed the public and caused the government gargantuan embarrassment, likewise, (3) the tweet under review lucidly falls within the narrow prism of the extant Section 24 of the Cybercrimes Act.”

He further said that some of Onanuga’s past social media posts, including one allegedly warning that the 2023 election should be “the last time of Igbo interference in Lagos politics,” amounted to racist and xenophobic conduct punishable under the Cybercrimes Act.

“The tweet under review lucidly falls within the narrow prism of Section 24 of the Cybercrimes Act,” Abubakar stated.

He added that if found guilty under relevant provisions of the law, Onanuga should face the prescribed penalties, including imprisonment or fines.

Abubakar also noted that Otse reserved the right to pursue civil action over the matter.