The growing tendency among Nigerians to seek redress through social media personalities rather than formal institutions of justice reflects a troubling crisis of confidence in the country’s justice system. Indeed, there is a lot to worry about when social media activism has, in some circumstances, come to be trusted more than state institutions. Interestingly, the popularity of some of these figures illustrates the appeal of instant, public, and seemingly accessible justice in a society where court processes are often viewed as slow, expensive, and overly technical, JOSEPH ONYEKWERE reports.

There is a revealing paradox in Nigeria’s contemporary justice landscape. At a time when access to the courts has never been easier in constitutional terms, an increasing number of citizens appear to prefer taking their grievances to social media personalities rather than to the institutions established by law to adjudicate disputes.

The phenomenon surrounding personalities like Martins Otse, better known as VeryDarkMan (VDM), is particularly instructive.

Whatever one’s assessment of his methods, his growing influence reflects a reality that should concern legal practitioners, the judiciary, law-enforcement agencies and other public institutions. This is because many Nigerians now believe that a loud and persistent voice on social media can produce results faster than the formal machinery of justice.

This is the new face of what may be described as “vigilante justice”—not the traditional vigilante with a weapon or a mob with crude instruments of enforcement, but a digital rabble-rouser armed with a smartphone, livestream, large followership, and the ability to mobilise public outrage.

For many of VDM’s followers, the attraction is obvious. There is immediacy; there is visibility. There is the perception that no powerful individual or institution is beyond scrutiny. A grievance that might disappear into an administrative file or remain unresolved for years can become a national conversation within hours.

The formal justice system operates differently, and necessarily so. Courts cannot determine guilt merely because an allegation is compelling. Evidence must be presented, tested, and weighed. Parties must be heard. Procedural rules must be observed. The accused is entitled to a defence. Judges must make decisions according to the law rather than the volume of public sentiment.

These safeguards are the foundation of the rule of law. But they become difficult to defend in the eyes of citizens when the pursuit of justice is accompanied by interminable adjournments, technical objections, escalating legal costs, and judgments that sometimes take years to obtain and even longer to enforce.

The problem, therefore, is not simply that Nigerians are embracing social media activism. The deeper question is why social media activism has, in some circumstances, become more trusted than state institutions.

That question demands uncomfortable introspection. When a person believes that obtaining a judicial remedy will take years and substantial resources, while a social media post can attract immediate public attention, the rational choice may increasingly seem obvious.

But there is a grave danger in allowing public outrage to become an alternative courtroom. Social media does not operate according to the evidential standards of a court. An allegation can quickly become a “fact” through repetition; a person can be publicly convicted without being heard, and a reputation painstakingly built over decades can be destroyed in a few hours. Context can disappear beneath sensational headlines, while outrage becomes its own form of evidence.

The tragedy is that the same platform capable of exposing genuine injustice can also produce profound injustice. This is why the phenomenon should not be dismissed as merely the work of “rabble-rousers.” Their popularity is itself a message from society. They are filling a vacuum created by institutional distrust.

The answer, however, is not to pit social media activists against the judiciary, nor should the state respond to criticism by attempting to silence uncomfortable voices. Rather, the popularity of alternative justice mechanisms should become an incentive for institutional reforms.

It is also disheartening to note that VDM is revelling in the new wave of justice he provides. He derided lawyers and the entire justice sector over the criticisms that followed his invitation to and participation in the recently concluded yearly general conference of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) in Port Harcourt, Rivers State. His conduct, rather than attract total condemnation, should point to the urgent need for reform.

Courts must become faster without sacrificing fairness. Legal procedures must be simplified where possible. Justice must become less prohibitively expensive. Law enforcement agencies must respond promptly to credible complaints. Most importantly, judgments must not merely be delivered; they must be enforceable.

However, there is also a responsibility on citizens and digital activists. Accountability is legitimate, while intimidation is not. Public scrutiny is healthy; public condemnation without evidence can be dangerous. Therefore, no amount of popularity should confer upon any individual the authority to determine guilt outside the law.

This is because Nigeria cannot afford a justice architecture in which the court of public opinion becomes more authoritative than the court of law. Yet, neither can it afford a legal system so slow, inaccessible, or distrusted that citizens feel compelled to create their own mechanisms of justice.

The emergence of VDM and similar voices should therefore be understood as both a social phenomenon and an institutional warning. Their influence is not simply about the personalities involved. It is about a population searching for an avenue through which its grievances and voices can be heard.

The ultimate contest is not between VDM and the judiciary. It is between instant visibility and institutional legitimacy; between the speed of outrage and the discipline of due process; between the court of public opinion and the court of law.

A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Yomi Alliyu, believes that the cost of litigation and the time it takes to conclude a case make social media a viable alternative. He argued that, despite the allure of social media, it has no means of enforcing its conclusions, unlike court judgments. According to him, it merely appeals to the violator’s conscience.

“The Ombudsman would have played this role very well, but they are not properly empowered. Apart from that, they have limited awareness. Most importantly, their offices are almost always situated in high-brow government secretariats, thus keeping them out of the reach of low-income masses who cannot afford legal fees,” he argued.

Alliyu explained that the combination of these factors makes social media personalities like VDM first responders, since they can be contacted via the Internet, adding that, in all, the law courts remain the best arbiters of citizens’ conflicts.

Similarly, Abdulaziz Chuba Ogbui, a lawyer and human rights advocate, argued that the time it takes to conclude cases and the financial burden it lays on disputants make vigilante justice more attractive.

“In many places globally, not just in Nigeria—especially in jurisdictions whose legal adjudication procedure is adversarial in nature—getting disputes settled takes a long time and incurs unnecessary financial costs. Hence, people, especially in the developing world, resort to any method that would ensure quick relief,” he said.

Ogui suggested, however, that such alternative dispute resolution mechanisms should not be discouraged as long as the method adopted does not involve illegality or unleash injustice on any of the parties. He argued that even when cases are already before the courts, the courts encourage parties to settle out of court through alternative dispute resolution, such as arbitration or mediation.

“There is always the saying that you may get justice in court, but you may not get peace. By using ADR methods, the courts are decongested of minor disputes. However, the surge to place such cases before social media personalities may be due to the failure of established legal institutions, delays in accessing and obtaining justice, the exorbitant costs and corruption,” he pointed out, challenging the government to address those issues adequately.

Another reason for embracing vigilante justice, he said, may be ignorance. Some of the complainants, he noted, tend to confer undeserved importance on social media personalities because of their rascality. He added that such rascality gives them a false image of the champions of the people’s rights.

“So, if the government fixes what is believed to be wrong with established legal institutions, the situation may change. These social media personalities are, after all, a stopgap measure because an informed person may refuse to submit to their jurisdiction, so to speak. If drastic steps are not taken to reverse this growing tendency of placing disputes before such social media personalities, some of whom exploit such opportunities for personal gain, it will erode the confidence in established legal institutions,” Ogui warned.

For Lagos-based lawyer Abdulwasiu Esuola, the emergence of vigilante justice is evidence that our traditional justice systems are becoming difficult to access.

According to him, the way to reverse this trend is to make Nigeria’s justice system more usable and accessible.

“Usability and accessibility involve the act of deploying online dispute resolution systems for simple business disputes with transparent rules and processes as a means of taking justice to the common man’s doorstep,” Esuola suggested.

Also, ventilating the issue, a Lagos-based lawyer, Theophilus Akanwa, argued that institutional failure, lack of trust, and lack of justice are the reasons people prefer to take their grievances to social media rather than using the institutions established by law to resolve such conflicts. Over the years, so many citizens, he said, have had institutional disappointments, lack of confidence and hatred to the extent that they no longer repose confidence in the institutions.

“The belief in going to social media is that, with public outcry or sympathy, justice will prevail. It is long overdue for our institutions to live up to expectations and restore their aims and objectives, with a view to maintaining them. Appointments of those who oversee our institutions should be based on merit and capacity to deliver,” he advised.

Akanwa warned that if Nigeria must work, politicians must desist from appointing their cronies, followers, relations, friends, and political thugs who do not merit such positions.

But an Asaba-based lawyer, Victor Onwordi, thinks differently. He believes that there is nothing wrong with vigilante justice. “In all honesty, I don’t see a problem with it. Social media is the biggest poll of public opinion in the 2020s. I think in some circles, the significance of social media is vastly underrated. It’s not an indicator of right or wrong per se, but an enabler.

“VDM and other social media personalities have taken advantage of the power of social media. People hardly watch TV, and those who do are mostly of the older generation. So, people are frustrated by the older generation holding down traditional dispute resolution platforms, such as the courts. People want their voices heard by everyone, on time as well. Public perception is the name of the game.

“With this development, a police officer can be dealt with for any misconduct against a citizen because the misbehaviour has gone viral on social media. Youths won’t enjoy that kind of trend with quick results and want to ventilate their grievances on statutorily established institutions that will seemingly totter perpetually,” he argued.

He explained that social media personalities don’t have the limitation of depending on any institution to function, as they are neutral and independent. Onwordi, however, added that vigilante justice cannot be compared to judicial adjudication because the influencers are not trained or empowered by law to resolve complex issues.

He said: “Social media isn’t a court or police. I think they know that they can’t instil guilt and impose a penalty. I think they just provide a free platform for people to express themselves about any wrongful act without being harassed, manipulated, or chastised.

“The worst thing VDM or anyone similar to him can do is to become literally political. It will turn social media into political media, and the confidence the public reposed in them will be lost through money and power.”