By By Elizabeth Ugbo
A civic group on Friday defended Chief Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Information and Strategy, against calls for his apology and prosecution over comments linked to controversial AI-generated content allegedly associated with social commentator Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VDM. The group reacted in Nigeria after Marshall Abubakar, who identified himself as VDM’s lawyer, demanded an apology, investigation, and prosecution of Onanuga. According to the group, Onanuga acted within his constitutional rights by raising concerns about misinformation and national security threats posed by manipulated digital content.
Group Rejects Calls for Apology and Prosecution
The group said Mr. Abubakar has the constitutional right to defend his client. However, it described the demands against Onanuga as excessive and premature.
According to the statement, freedom of expression protects both citizens and public officials. Therefore, disagreement alone cannot justify criminal prosecution.
The group cited Section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression and the right to share opinions without interference.
Onanuga’s Democratic Credentials Highlighted
The statement praised Chief Onanuga’s long history in Nigeria’s pro-democracy struggle.
It noted that he played an active role in the activities of the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) during military rule. It also stated that he sacrificed greatly for democracy and journalism.
Furthermore, the group argued that his experience qualifies him for his current position as Presidential Adviser on Information and Strategy.
According to the statement, his role includes correcting misinformation and protecting public confidence.
AI-Generated Content Raised Security Concerns
The group explained that the viral audio and video clips sparked public anxiety across the country.
It argued that the widespread circulation of the content justified public scrutiny. In addition, it questioned why Martins Vincent Otse allegedly failed to quickly debunk the clips on official platforms.
The statement added that manipulated digital content now poses serious risks to national stability.
Consequently, public officials cannot ignore information capable of creating panic or confusion.
No Evidence of Abuse of Office
The group dismissed allegations that Onanuga abused his office.
According to the statement, abuse of office requires clear evidence of unlawful conduct or personal gain. However, no such evidence has emerged publicly.
It stressed that allegations alone cannot establish criminal liability.
The statement also referenced the Supreme Court decision in Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961) 1 All NLR 400. The court ruled that no act becomes criminal unless the law clearly defines it as an offence.
Therefore, the group argued that calls for prosecution lack legal foundation.
Courts Should Decide Any Defamation Claims
The statement urged aggrieved parties to seek legal remedies through the courts instead of social media campaigns.
It cited Arthur Nwankwo v. The State (1985) 6 NCLR 228, where the Court of Appeal defended freedom of expression as a pillar of democracy.
The group also referenced Director of SSS v. Agbakoba (1999) 3 NWLR (Pt. 595) 314. In that case, the Supreme Court supported broad protection for constitutional rights.
According to the statement, democracy thrives when all sides freely express their opinions.
Nigeria Must Address AI Misinformation Risks
The group warned that deepfakes and AI-generated misinformation now threaten public trust globally.
It said Onanuga’s comments helped raise awareness about the dangers of manipulated online content.
Additionally, the statement described AI misinformation as a growing challenge to democratic discourse and national security.
The group therefore urged Nigerians to focus on strengthening the rule of law instead of attacking public officials for expressing concerns.
Rule of Law Must Prevail
The statement concluded that demands for apology, investigation, or prosecution remain legally unsustainable without credible evidence.
It maintained that Nigeria’s democracy will grow stronger when disputes are resolved through lawful institutions and constitutional processes.
Finally, the group warned against creating a climate where public officials fear speaking on issues of national importance.
