By Wale Ojo-Lanre Esq
There is an old philosophical reflection often echoed by African thinkers like Julius Nyerere—that names are not accidental. Names shape identity. Names suggest essence. Names sometimes announce destiny.
So one is tempted to ask: what is a name—and what does it reveal about the man who bears it?
It is difficult, indeed impossible, to understand why a person who calls himself VeryDarkMan would choose to raise an “issue” in this modern, digital, reasoning age by commencing with curses.
Curses—in dialectics?
Curses—in policy conversation?
Curses—in an era of data, documents, and due process?
Haba.
Curses belong to the dark ages. They are the last refuge of those who cannot argue, cannot interrogate facts, and cannot sustain logic. Where reasoning ends, cursing begins. Perhaps that explains the darkness—whether of thought or temperament—on display. Dark… or simply daft.
Let it be said plainly: I am not opposed to anyone raising issues. On the contrary, issue-raising is a civic duty—when done intelligently, subtly, and with humility. A serious issue raiser seeks explanation, not confrontation. He asks questions before drawing conclusions. His tone invites dialogue, not hostility.
What then do we make of a man who begins “issue-raising” by cursing a sitting governor, abusing an entire state, and raining insults on its eminent people?
How does one start a public intervention by laying curses on a governor who has not personally offended him?
How does one extend those curses to the people of a state he is not from, as though they collectively deprived him of something vital?
How does one speak with such venom, as if Ekiti State owed him restitution for a private grievance?
That is not criticism.
That is buffoonery elevated to performance.
It is intellectual recklessness.
It is verbal violence born of ignorance.
It is a disturbing display of mental aggression, where rage replaces reason and insult substitutes for argument.
From the video circulated, VeryDarkMan failed every test of a responsible, intelligent, result-seeking issue raiser. His posture was hostile, his demeanour combative, his language abusive. There was no curiosity, no balance, no evidence of a mind open to explanation. What was on display was not advocacy, but a patient exhibition of stupidity edging dangerously close to incoherence.
Budgeting—particularly health-sector budgeting—is not a tantrum arena. It is a structured, law-guided process shaped by fiscal limits, statutory obligations, sectoral priorities, and long-term planning. Anyone who approaches it with curses instead of questions merely advertises his inability to understand complexity.
Ekiti State is not a punching bag for social-media rage. It is a state known for scholarship, disciplined thought, and respect for institutions. To insult it wholesale because one cannot read or interpret a budget document is to confess one’s own intellectual unfitness for serious public debate.
Let this be said without ambiguity:
VeryDarkMan owes the Governor of Ekiti State a serious public apology.
He owes Ekiti State and its people an unreserved apology.
Not as a favour—but as the bare minimum requirement of decency, responsibility, and civic maturity.
Criticism is welcome.
Questions are encouraged.
But cursing where inquiry is required, and shouting where thinking is demanded, is not activism. It is noise—and noise, however loud, has never substituted for intelligence.
In the end, every commentator faces a simple choice: to learn, or to be loud.
History, mercifully, has never confused the two.
As for VeryDarkMan, the problem is not boldness; it is poor upbringing of thought. He would do well to step back, consult his elders, and learn how issues are raised in a civilised society—with sense, restraint, intelligence, and the manners of someone properly brought up