In the world of public commentary and social media outbursts, reputations can be shattered in seconds, often on the back of misinformation, conspiracy theories, or sheer emotional outbursts. Over the past few days, the Nigerian social media space has been awash with one such firestorm, the arrest of controversial social media activist, VeryDarkMan (VDM), and the rush to accuse Guaranty Trust Bank (GTBank) of orchestrating the arrest.
As soon as news broke that VDM had been picked up by the police, allegations and counter-allegations began flying across digital platforms. In the heat of it all, fingers pointed directly and harshly at GTBank, with thousands of Nigerians accusing the institution of being behind his arrest. Influencers went live to fan the flames.
Commenters left scathing remarks under every GTBank social media post. Boycott calls were loud. A narrative was spun, shared, re-shared, and believed, all without a shred of verified evidence.
But now, as the dust begins to settle, facts have begun to surface. The bank, in an official and strongly worded press release, has categorically distanced itself from the incident. Not only has GTBank denied any involvement, it has gone further to state that it has no relationship with VDM that would warrant such an action. And from the evidence seen so far, including police statements, it is clear that the matter stemmed from a different set of individuals and grievances, unrelated to the bank.
So, the question must now be asked: Who will apologize? The foregoing question cannot be farfetched as the unfair and unjust victimization of the bank in the episode reflects a disturbing trend in the age of instant reactions, what many now refer to as “trial by social media.” In this parallel court of public opinion, accusations are hurled without verification, and brands or individuals are declared guilty before they even have the chance to speak. The consequences are often severe, reputational damage, loss of customer trust, boycotts, and sometimes even threats to employees.
For GTBank, the storm was intense. Many customers, swayed by emotion and misinformation, closed their accounts or vowed to. A campaign to boycott the bank trended for hours. Public figures added their voices, not with caution, but with conviction, denouncing the bank without giving it the benefit of a fair hearing.
Paradoxically, it is the same GTBank that has, for decades, built a brand reputation of transparency, excellence, and reliability. A bank that has grown into a continental player, pioneering innovations and redefining customer service in Nigeria’s banking sector. Yet all it took was one unverified accusation to bring down the wrath of the digital mob.
The irony? Some of the same individuals who helped amplify the false accusations are now silent, pretending as though they never participated in the public lynching.
Looked at from the perspective of the dangerous culture of unverified accusations, it is not out of place to opine that the Nigerian online community, particularly on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram, has become increasingly prone to knee-jerk reactions. It only takes one viral post or video for a falsehood to snowball into “fact.” And while this pattern is not limited to Nigeria, the speed and ferocity with which online Nigerians weaponize outrage is something worthy of deep reflection.
The danger of this culture cannot be overstated. Today it is GTBank. Tomorrow, it could be another institution. Or an innocent individual. When we live in a society where anyone can wake up, post a lie, and watch it grow legs simply because it fits a popular narrative, we are sowing the seeds of chaos. There must be a line between activism and recklessness, between speaking out and speaking without knowledge.
In fact, many of those who led the charge against GTBank are influencers, people with large platforms and, arguably, greater responsibility. But in this case, that responsibility was treated with levity. The default mode was outrage, not inquiry. Many posted rants, thinly veiled as “concern,” without any attempt to fact-check. Some even leveraged the controversy to gain traction, followers, or clout.
It is time influencers are reminded that reach comes with responsibility. You cannot have a platform that influences thousands or millions, yet speak carelessly and expect to escape accountability. When you falsely accuse a bank, or any institution, of misdemeanor, that is not just irresponsible; it is dangerous.
In saner climes, those who made such bold and incorrect accusations would by now be issuing public apologies, not just to save face, but as a matter of principle. To acknowledge they were wrong. To reaffirm the value of truth and due process. Unfortunately, in Nigeria, we have developed a culture where saying “I’m sorry” is viewed as a weakness, not the honorable act it truly is.
But here is the truth: those who falsely implicated GTBank in VDM’s arrest owe the bank an unreserved apology. Influencers who posted accusatory content should pull them down and apologize. Commentators who led boycott calls should walk them back. Even ordinary users who participated in the smear campaign should own up to their mistakes.
At this juncture, not a few people reading this piece may be tempted to ask, “Why apologize to GTBank?” The answer to the foregoing question cannot be farfetched as integrity demands it.
While GTBank is clearly not at fault in this instance, the incident serves as a wake-up call for the bank and other corporate brands in Nigeria. In the age of virality and digital trials, reputation management is no longer a luxury, it is a necessity.
GTBank should take steps to further boost its digital crisis response strategy. Perhaps consider engaging more actively in the online community, building a base of trust and goodwill that can withstand future storms. There must also be room for engaging fact-checkers and communicating more swiftly when rumors begin to fly. The sooner an organization speaks, the quicker it can regain control of the narrative.
Additionally, there is a need for banks and big brands to begin holding individuals accountable for libel and defamation in clear-cut cases. Not out of vindictiveness, but to send a message: public commentary must be tied to responsibility.
On the other hand, as citizens, whether online or offline, we must learn to pause, to question, and to investigate before reaching conclusions. It is okay to be angry about injustice. It is noble to speak up when wrong is being done. But when our activism is based on lies or false assumptions, it loses all credibility. Worse, it makes us complicit in new injustices, like the one done to GTBank.
We cannot demand justice and fairness from the government while simultaneously creating a culture of mob justice in our digital spaces. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Against the foregoing backdrop, it is germane to reiterate that GTBank did not arrest VDM. The accusations against the bank were false. Now that this has been established, those who helped spread that lie must take responsibility for their actions. This is not just about GTBank’s reputation. It is about the kind of digital society we are building.
Do we want a space where anyone can be falsely accused and destroyed in a matter of hours? Or do we want a space where truth, integrity, and fairness still matter? The answer to the foregoing question will define the future of public discourse in Nigeria. Until then, one thing remains clear: GTBank deserves an apology.
