Navigating Risks in Activism: The Fallout Between VeryDarkMan and His Lawyer

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Key Takeaways:

• VeryDarkMan (VDM) criticizes his lawyer for cautionary advice.
• Tension exists between activist boldness and legal prudence.
• VDM argues that risk-taking is essential in activism.
• The public’s attention can be fleeting in times of crisis.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. VDM's Criticism of Adeyanju's Advice
3. The Legal Perspective on Risk in Activism
4. The Broader Implications of This Dispute
5. Conclusion
6. FAQs

Introduction

In recent events, Nigerian social media activist VeryDarkMan (VDM) has publicly criticized his lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, following a warning about the risks associated with activism. The tension between bold activism and cautious legal advice raises important questions about the challenges faced by activists in a precarious socio-political environment. This blog explores the fallout between VDM and Adeyanju, highlighting their contrasting perspectives on risk and how they reflect broader issues within activist circles.

VDM's Criticism of Adeyanju's Advice

VeryDarkMan expressed deep disappointment in his lawyer’s cautionary remarks. Adeyanju had warned VDM, through a post on X (formerly Twitter), to avoid unnecessary risks in his activism. He stated that:

• He regularly advises VDM to exercise caution.
• Public support can evaporate quickly if VDM were to encounter serious trouble, saying, “Nigerians don’t rate anybody”[1].

VDM responded fiercely, dubbing the advice as cowardly and a betrayal. In an Instagram video, he stated that only cowards offer such cautionary advice, suggesting it undermines the essential struggle of activism[2][3]. He argued that:

• Death and passing on are inevitable—citing figures such as Jesus Christ and former President Buhari.
• Society consistently moves forward, regardless of individual tragedies.
• Risk is necessary in activism, and fear-driven warnings serve only to silence dissent.

VDM’s strong rebuttal illustrated the stark disconnect between his brave stance on activism and Adeyanju's protective legal advice[3][8].

The Legal Perspective on Risk in Activism

Deji Adeyanju’s warning is rooted in a legal framework that emphasizes the importance of caution. He posits that:

• The law does not protect reckless speech, making it critical for activists like VDM to tread carefully[4].
• Maintaining a low profile can help avoid harsh legal consequences such as arrest or detention.

Adeyanju reaffirmed his commitment to supporting VDM but underscored the need for reduced confrontational approaches to minimize risks. This highlights a significant clash between:

• Legal caution: Advocating for prudence and self-preservation to shield activists from unnecessary legal issues.
• Activist boldness: The belief that meaningful change often requires taking significant risks.

This situation reflects a deeper issue where activists face the dual challenge of remaining vocal in their beliefs while navigating the precarious waters of legal ramifications[5][6].

The Broader Implications of This Dispute

The disagreement between VDM and Adeyanju brings to light several critical implications for activism in Nigeria:

• Acting Boldly vs. Playing it Safe: VDM's position emphasizes that impactful activism involves risk. On the other hand, Adeyanju's focus on legal safety reveals a genuine concern for VDM's well-being.
• Fleeting Public Support: Adeyanju's warnings about public support vanishing quickly underscore a harsh reality. VDM's insistence that societal progress is indifferent to individual activists highlights a common plight: The rapid shift in public attention can leave activists feeling increasingly vulnerable after they’ve taken bold stands[2].
• Understanding the Risks: The reality of activism often includes unavoidable risks. VDM's argument that “we are all nothing” serves as a reminder that every individual, regardless of their status, faces mortality and potential danger. His reflection on insecurity across diverse Nigerian states, such as Benue, Borno, Delta, Taraba, and Enugu, further emphasizes that safety is an illusion for many, regardless of their level of caution[2][3].

Conclusion

The unfolding tension between VeryDarkMan and his lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, encapsulates the ongoing struggle activists face in balancing courageous advocacy with legal caution. VDM's passionate defense of risk-taking in activism clashes starkly with Adeyanju's sober legal insights. As society continues to evolve, the dialogue surrounding the nature of activism, public support, and personal safety remains crucial.

Activists must navigate this complex landscape with an understanding that while the cause demands bravery, the risks associated with their actions can have serious implications—both legally and on personal safety.

FAQs

1. Why did VDM criticize his lawyer?

VDM criticized Deji Adeyanju’s cautionary warnings as cowardly, arguing that risk is an intrinsic part of activism.

2. What was Adeyanju’s main concern?

Adeyanju is concerned about the legal repercussions of VDM's activism and the fleeting nature of public support.

3. What are the broader implications of their dispute?

The dispute highlights the tension between legal caution and the necessity for risk-taking in activism, as well as concerns over public support for activists.

4. How does VDM view death in relation to activism?

VDM argues that death is universal and should not deter one from pursuing activism, emphasizing that society will always move forward regardless.

5. What can activists learn from this situation?

Activists can learn the importance of balancing courage with a practical understanding of the risks involved in their actions.