Nigeria's social-media ecosystem has created a new class of public commentator: people whose phones have become newsrooms, courts, investigative desks and, sometimes, entertainment studios. Their influence is real. But influence is not the same thing as authority, and virality is certainly not the same thing as evidence.
In Nigeria today, a serious allegation can begin with an Instagram Live, a Facebook broadcast, a TikTok video or a WhatsApp voice note and, within hours, become accepted as "fact" by thousands of people.
That is where figures such as Lizzy Anjorin, Mama Esabod, Yinka TNT, Iyabo Ojo and VeryDarkMan (VDM) enter the picture.
They are very different people, with very different careers, audiences and motivations. It would therefore be unfair—and intellectually lazy—to put them in the same category or accuse all of them of spreading false information.
But there is a legitimate reason to examine them together:
They are influential personalities whose public statements can shape how large audiences perceive other people, institutions and controversial events.
That influence demands a corresponding level of skepticism from their audiences.
The question is not whether Nigerians should listen to them.
They can.
The question is whether Nigerians should believe everything they say simply because they said it confidently, emotionally or repeatedly.
The answer should be no.
1. Lizzy Anjorin: Actress, Entrepreneur and Highly Personal Social-Media Commentator
Lizzy Anjorin, whose birth name is Elizabeth Ibukunoluwa Anjorin, is a Nigerian actress, filmmaker, producer and businesswoman associated particularly with the Yoruba-language film industry.
She has also become known for highly personal social-media disputes.
That distinction matters.
There is a difference between watching an actress discuss her career and treating her account of another person's alleged conduct as established fact.
One particularly instructive episode involved a 2019 dispute with actress Toyin Abraham. Anjorin accused Abraham of accusing her of cocaine trafficking and causing her to be searched at an airport. Anjorin subsequently apologised publicly after the allegation was found to be untrue and lacking merit.
That episode should not be used to dismiss everything Anjorin says.
But it demonstrates an important principle:
A public figure can sincerely believe something and still be wrong.
And when the subject is another person's reputation, being wrong can have consequences.
This is why audiences should distinguish between:
"Lizzy Anjorin says X happened."
and
"X happened."
Those are two completely different propositions.
2. Mama Esabod: The Online Broadcaster Who Built an Identity Around Unfiltered Commentary
Esther Tokunbo Aboderin, popularly known as Mama Esabod, is associated with Esabod Global News.
Her own biographical account identifies the name Esabod with Esther Tokunbo Aboderin and describes her background, relocation to the United Kingdom and development of the Esabod platform.
Esabod's appeal is precisely what makes her influential: she presents herself as someone willing to say what others will not say.
That style attracts an audience because conventional journalism can sometimes appear cautious, slow or compromised.
But there is a danger in the "I will tell you what they don't want you to know" model.
It can encourage audiences to treat unverified information as privileged information.
The psychological effect is powerful.
If someone says:
"The mainstream media will never tell you this."
the listener can begin to assume that the speaker possesses information that journalists, investigators and institutions somehow missed.
But secrecy is not evidence.
A claim does not become true because it is presented as something powerful people supposedly want hidden.
3. Yinka TNT: Relationship and Social Commentary, Not an Alternative Court
Yinka Ayanda, popularly known as Yinka TNT, is a Nigerian-UK-based personality known for music and outspoken commentary on relationships, sexuality and social issues.
A profile by The News described her as a pragmatic and outspoken commentator whose programmes are presented in Yoruba and have attracted a large international audience.
In interviews, Yinka TNT herself has described her approach as deliberately open and frank, particularly regarding sex, relationships and marriage.
That openness is part of her appeal.
But it also illustrates why audiences need boundaries.
Relationship advice is not the same thing as professional counselling.
And social commentary is not the same thing as investigative journalism.
Yinka TNT can provide observations based on experience, opinion and personal philosophy.
But when a social-media personality makes claims about a person's private life, health, marriage, finances or alleged misconduct, the audience should ask:
Where is the evidence?
This becomes especially important when personalities move from general advice into specific allegations concerning identifiable individuals.
4. Iyabo Ojo: Activist, Actress and Participant in Highly Charged Public Disputes
Iyabo Ojo is different from the others.
She is an established Nollywood actress and producer who has also become an outspoken activist on social issues.
Her public activism became particularly prominent following the death of singer Mohbad and the wider campaign demanding accountability.
She has also previously taken public positions in other controversial cases, including the Baba Ijesha sexual-abuse case. Her activism has sometimes resulted in serious disputes and legal conflicts.
But activism comes with its own danger:
Being passionate about a cause does not automatically make every conclusion drawn from that cause correct.
The Mohbad controversy demonstrated how quickly public opinion can become divided between competing narratives.
And this is precisely where audiences need discipline.
You can support someone's demand for justice without automatically accepting every allegation they make.
You can agree that an investigation is necessary without deciding who is guilty.
You can defend a victim without turning suspicion into a verdict.
That distinction is essential in a country where social-media trials increasingly precede formal investigations.
5. VeryDarkMan: The Most Obvious Example of Why Virality Is Not Verification
VeryDarkMan, whose real name is Martins Vincent Otse, has built an enormous online following by positioning himself as an anti-corruption and accountability campaigner.
He calls himself an "online police officer" and has become one of Nigeria's most influential social-media personalities.
His supporters see him as someone willing to confront powerful people.
His critics accuse him of making allegations without adequate verification and using aggressive public confrontation as a form of activism.
And there is documented legal history that audiences should know about.
In 2024, VDM was arraigned in connection with allegations including cyberbullying and offensive publications involving Iyabo Ojo, Tonto Dikeh and others. The case was subsequently continued, with proceedings still being reported in 2025.
The existence of a criminal or civil allegation against somebody does not establish that the allegation is true.
That principle applies to VDM himself—and it must equally apply to people he talks about.
This is the critical lesson.
Do not allow an influencer to become your judge, jury and evidence.
The Common Problem: Personality Can Become a Substitute for Evidence
These five personalities are not identical.
Some are entertainers.
Some are commentators.
Some are activists.
Some operate media platforms.
Some focus heavily on relationships and social issues.
Some specialise in confrontational online commentary.
But there is a common phenomenon surrounding all of them:
Their personalities are part of their media product.
That matters.
Traditional journalism ideally separates the reporter from the story.
Social-media commentary often does the opposite.
The personality is the story.
Anger generates engagement.
Conflict generates engagement.
Accusations generate engagement.
Reactions generate engagement.
And controversy generates even more engagement.
This creates a structural incentive to produce content that keeps audiences watching.
That does not mean every controversial statement is false.
It means audiences should recognise the incentive structure.
The Five Questions Nigerians Should Ask Before Believing an Influencer
Before accepting a sensational claim from any social-media personality, ask five questions.
1. What is the evidence?
Is there:
- a court document?
- an official statement?
- a police record?
- a financial document?
- an audio recording that can be authenticated?
- multiple independent witnesses?
- credible journalism?
Or is it simply:
"I heard..."
2. Has the accused person responded?
A serious allegation deserves the opportunity for the accused person to respond.
Silence is not proof of guilt.
But neither is denial proof of innocence.
The audience needs to hear both sides.
3. Is this an allegation or an established fact?
This is perhaps the most important distinction.
Instead of saying:
"X stole ₦500 million."
responsible reporting should say:
"X has been accused of stealing ₦500 million."
And then identify who made the accusation and what evidence exists.
That difference protects both the audience and the person being accused.
4. What does the influencer gain?
This does not automatically invalidate a claim.
But it is worth asking.
Does the controversy generate:
- views?
- followers?
- donations?
- advertising?
- subscriptions?
- publicity?
- political influence?
- personal leverage?
Again, having an incentive does not mean someone is lying.
It simply means the audience should examine the claim more carefully.
5. Can I independently verify it?
This is the gold standard.
Don't make an important decision because:
"VDM said it."
Don't accept an allegation because:
"Esabod said it."
Don't accept a relationship claim because:
"Yinka TNT said it."
Don't assume an entertainment dispute is settled because:
"Lizzy Anjorin said it."
And don't assume an activist's interpretation is automatically established fact because:
"Iyabo Ojo said it."
The correct response is:
"Show me the evidence."
Nigeria Has a Dangerous New Information Economy
The deeper problem is not these five personalities.
They are symptoms of a much larger transformation.
Nigeria has moved from a world where newspapers, television and radio controlled most mass information to one where a person with a smartphone can reach millions.
That democratises speech.
But it also democratises misinformation.
A person no longer needs:
- a journalism degree
- a newsroom
- an editor
- a lawyer
- a fact-checking department
- a publisher
to broadcast a potentially damaging allegation.
All they need is an internet connection and an audience.
This is both liberating and dangerous.
The Audience Has Become the Editor
There is a responsibility that Nigerians often overlook.
When you share an unverified allegation, you become part of the distribution network.
The original influencer may have 2 million followers.
But one follower can forward the claim to a WhatsApp group.
Another posts it on Facebook.
Another creates a TikTok.
Another publishes it on a blog.
Within 24 hours, the original allegation can appear to have been independently confirmed simply because thousands of people are repeating it.
That is how rumours acquire the appearance of truth.
Social Media Has Replaced "According to Sources" With "I Know"
Traditional journalism has problems.
But professional journalism developed certain safeguards for a reason.
Reporters are expected to ask:
Who said it?
How do they know?
Can it be independently verified?
What does the other side say?
Can we publish the evidence?
Influencer culture often compresses that entire process into:
"Guys, I have gist for you."
And the audience immediately begins reacting.
That is not necessarily journalism.
Sometimes it is entertainment.
Sometimes it is activism.
Sometimes it is genuine whistleblowing.
And sometimes it is simply an allegation.
The audience has to know the difference.
The Most Dangerous Sentence on Nigerian Social Media
It may be:
"I have evidence."
That sentence should never be accepted automatically.
The correct response is:
What evidence?
If there are documents, show the documents.
If there are recordings, authenticate the recordings.
If there are witnesses, identify the basis of their knowledge.
If there is a court case, show the court documents.
If there is an official investigation, identify the investigating authority.
Evidence is not the same thing as a screenshot.
A screenshot is not the same thing as a verified document.
A voice note is not automatically authentic.
A WhatsApp conversation can be fabricated.
A video can be edited.
And an influencer can be sincerely wrong.
This Is Not a Defence of Celebrities
There is another important point.
Saying Nigerians should verify accusations does not mean celebrities should be protected from scrutiny.
If an actor, politician, pastor, businessman or influencer has done something wrong, they should be held accountable.
The solution is not to silence critics.
The solution is better criticism.
Evidence-based criticism is stronger than insults.
Documents are stronger than rumours.
Court records are stronger than Instagram Lives.
Audited financial records are stronger than screenshots.
Independent witnesses are stronger than anonymous gossip.
And verified investigations are stronger than viral hashtags.
Nigerians Need to Stop Confusing Confidence With Competence
One of the greatest dangers of influencer culture is the confidence effect.
Someone speaks loudly.
They appear certain.
They use strong language.
They insult opponents.
They produce dramatic videos.
They appear to know secrets.
The audience begins to assume:
"This person must know what they are talking about."
Not necessarily.
Confidence is a communication style.
It is not evidence.
Aggression is not expertise.
Popularity is not expertise.
Follower count is not expertise.
And virality is not verification.
The Right Way to Consume Their Content
There is no reason Nigerians must stop listening to Lizzy Anjorin, Mama Esabod, Yinka TNT, Iyabo Ojo or VDM.
Listen.
Watch.
Analyse.
Challenge.
Compare.
Verify.
But don't surrender your judgment.
Treat their platforms as sources of claims, not automatic sources of truth.
If they expose something important, investigate it.
If they present documents, examine them.
If they make an allegation, search for independent confirmation.
If they attack someone, listen to the accused person's response.
And if nobody can independently verify the claim, label it appropriately:
unverified.
Conclusion: Don't Outsource Your Judgment to Influencers
Nigeria's social-media revolution has produced a new kind of public power.
Lizzy Anjorin has an audience.
Mama Esabod has an audience.
Yinka TNT has an audience.
Iyabo Ojo has an audience.
VeryDarkMan has an enormous audience.
Their words can influence reputations, relationships, businesses, investigations and public opinion.
That is precisely why their audiences must become more—not less—skeptical.
The lesson is not:
"Don't listen to them."
The lesson is:
Listen, but verify.
Listen to the accusation—but look for evidence.
Listen to the defence—but look for evidence.
Listen to the activist—but distinguish advocacy from fact.
Listen to the entertainer—but don't confuse entertainment with investigation.
Listen to the influencer—but don't make the influencer your judge.
Because in the age of viral information, the most dangerous sentence is no longer:
"I heard a rumour."
It is:
"Everybody is saying it, so it must be true."
It isn't.
And Nigeria's increasingly powerful influencer class makes one principle more important than ever:
**Nobody's follower count should be allowed to become a substitute for evidence.**
Comments
Post a Comment