VDM Apologises to Security Agencies over ‘Unknown Gunmen’ NBA Remarks

VDM apologises to security agencies after drawing a sharp reaction from the country’s armed forces and other security bodies for describing officers and men of the Nigerian military, the Nigeria Police Force, the Nigeria Immigration Service and the Nigeria Customs Service as “unknown gunmen” while speaking on a panel at the Nigerian Bar Association conference in 2026. The remarks, captured on video and widely circulated across social media platforms, triggered condemnation from senior security officials and defence spokespeople, who insisted the language was unfair and dangerous. The activist has since issued a public apology, asking that his words be understood as a critique of policy rather than an attack on officers.

The episode is the latest flashpoint in a year in which online commentators and street-level activists have clashed publicly with state institutions over the framing of insecurity in the country. It also highlights how comments made at high-profile professional gatherings can quickly snowball into national conversations, especially when recorded and shared by thousands of users within minutes. Lawyers, security analysts and civil society groups have weighed in on what the VDM apology means for free speech, professional conduct and the relationship between civilian critics and the uniformed services.

What exactly did VDM say at the NBA conference?

According to footage reviewed by journalists, VDM was a speaker at a panel session during the Nigerian Bar Association’s annual conference held in 2026. During his contribution, he criticised what he described as the failure of state security institutions to protect civilians from violent attacks across several regions. In an attempt to make his point about the visibility of attackers versus the visibility of state responders, he referred to personnel of the Nigerian military, the Nigeria Police Force, the Nigeria Immigration Service and the Nigeria Customs Service as “unknown gunmen.”

The phrase, which in the Nigerian public discourse typically refers to unidentified armed attackers responsible for killings in the South-East and other parts of the country, was used by VDM to suggest that, in some communities, citizens cannot tell the difference between official security operatives and criminal elements. The comment drew audible reactions from sections of the audience and was quickly picked up by journalists and online users who shared clips of the exchange. Within hours, defence and police spokespersons had issued statements demanding a retraction and apology.

How the security agencies responded

Within 24 hours of the clip going viral, senior officials from the affected agencies reacted. The Defence Headquarters described the remarks as “reckless, inflammatory and uncharitable,” arguing that branding officers of the armed forces as unknown gunmen insulted the sacrifice of soldiers, police, immigration and customs personnel who, it said, continue to lose their lives in internal security operations across the country.

The Nigeria Police Force, through its public relations machinery, called for an immediate and unqualified apology, warning that such comments undermine public trust in law enforcement and could put officers at greater risk. The Nigeria Immigration Service and the Nigeria Customs Service issued similar statements, noting that their personnel operate under clearly defined uniforms, identification systems and rules of engagement, and that generalising them as criminals is both factually incorrect and morally unfair.

Security analysts note that the swift, coordinated pushback reflects a more cautious posture by the agencies in 2026, given ongoing public scrutiny of human rights practices and several pending cases at national and regional courts. Officials appear determined to draw a line between legitimate criticism of security policy and what they consider personal attacks on officers.

VDM’s apology and what he said

In a video statement released on his verified social media handles, VDM acknowledged that his choice of words had hurt many officers and their families. He said the comment was made in the heat of a passionate debate about the rising toll of insecurity on ordinary Nigerians and was not intended to suggest that every security officer is a criminal. He apologised to the leadership of the Nigerian military, the Inspector-General of Police, the Comptroller-General of Customs and the Comptroller-General of Immigration, as well as to rank-and-file officers who felt maligned.

VDM, however, insisted that his broader point still stands. He argued that in some flashpoint communities, the line between uniformed security forces and armed criminal groups has become dangerously blurred in the eyes of residents, and that addressing that perception requires both policy reform and visible accountability. He called for an independent review of operations in the affected zones and urged the government to improve the identification and documentation of personnel deployed on internal security duties.

The apology has been interpreted in two ways. Some commentators view it as a sincere attempt to calm tensions and refocus attention on the victims of insecurity. Others see it as a tactical climbdown under pressure, pointing out that VDM retains a large and influential online following that has, in the past, been mobilised around similar public disputes. Either way, the matter has moved beyond a single panel session and into the wider debate about how critics and security agencies should engage in a polarised information environment.

Why the NBA conference matters in this debate

The Nigerian Bar Association conference is one of the largest annual gatherings of lawyers in the country, attracting senior advocates, judges, senior government officials and representatives of multilateral institutions. Its panel sessions are typically treated as semi-official platforms where frank commentary is expected. That status makes the VDM episode particularly sensitive, because the venue itself signals a degree of institutional legitimacy.

Legal practitioners at the conference told reporters that while robust criticism of security policy is welcome and protected, labelling entire services as “unknown gunmen” crosses a line into personal vilification. Several senior lawyers argued that activists with large platforms have a heightened duty to choose words carefully, especially when speaking in forums where their comments are likely to be amplified by traditional and social media.

Others cautioned against criminalising the comment itself. They noted that Nigeria’s constitutional framework protects freedom of expression, including the right to criticise state institutions, and that an apology, where it is sincerely given, is a more proportionate response than any form of prosecution. That view has gained ground among civil society groups monitoring the situation.

What this means for free speech and security engagement

The episode sits at the intersection of three important strands: freedom of expression, the protection of security personnel from defamation, and the public’s right to scrutinise state institutions. In 2026, Nigeria continues to navigate a delicate balance between these competing interests, particularly as courts have expanded the scope of permissible online commentary even as agencies push back against what they consider reckless framing.

For security institutions, the VDM apology offers a moment to reinforce internal communication strategies and ensure that officers deployed across the country are clearly identifiable. Visible name tags, properly marked vehicles and standardised uniforms remain simple but effective tools in rebuilding public confidence. Several analysts have argued that where the public cannot distinguish an officer from an attacker, the fault often lies less with critics and more with operational discipline and accountability mechanisms.

For activists and commentators, the case is a reminder that the platforms on which they speak carry weight, and that careless phrasing can distract from legitimate grievances. The strongest criticisms of state security policy in 2026 are increasingly expected to be backed by verifiable incidents, casualty figures and clearly documented case studies rather than sweeping labels.

Public reactions and next steps

Online conversations around the apology have been mixed. Supporters of VDM have argued that the apology should be accepted in good faith and that attention should now return to the underlying issues of insecurity. Critics, including some retired military officers and police veterans, have insisted that mere words are not enough and have called for a more formal retraction and a commitment to refrain from such characterisations in future.

The Nigerian Bar Association itself has not, at the time of writing, announced any disciplinary action against VDM, who is not a lawyer but was invited as a civil society voice. The association is, however, said to be reviewing its speaker selection protocol for future conferences to ensure that panellists are briefed on the expectations of decorum and accuracy attached to the platform.

Observers expect the conversation to continue in the coming weeks, particularly if any of the affected security agencies formally petition the police or the courts over the original remarks. For now, the immediate crisis appears to have eased with the apology, but the underlying questions about how Nigeria talks about its security challenges remain very much alive.

Frequently asked questions

Who is VDM?
VDM is a Nigerian social media activist and commentator known for outspoken commentary on governance, security and social issues. He has a large following across platforms and frequently engages with public figures and institutions.

What did he say about the security agencies?
During a panel session at the 2026 NBA conference, he referred to personnel of the Nigerian military, the police, immigration and customs as “unknown gunmen,” arguing that citizens in some areas cannot distinguish them from criminal elements. He later apologised for the remark.

Which agencies reacted to the comment?
The Defence Headquarters, the Nigeria Police Force, the Nigeria Immigration Service and the Nigeria Customs Service all issued statements condemning the remark and demanding an apology, which VDM subsequently issued.

Is VDM facing any legal action?
There is no confirmed report of formal charges at the time of writing. Discussions about possible petitions are ongoing, but the immediate dispute has been calmed by the public apology.

Related Reading

• Sokoto Bandit Attack: 5 Killed, 3 Injured as Armed Groups Strike Again
• Ex-general Challenges Defence Minister: Show Proof El-rufai Funded Bandits in Kaduna
• Police React to Boko Haram Borno Attack on APC Candidate’s Convoy