In early March 2026, the National Civil Society Council of Nigeria (NCSCN) found itself compelled to intervene in a controversy that had spiraled from a personal dispute into a national conversation about the role of the First Family, philanthropy, and the toxic underbelly of social media activism. At the heart of it were content creator King Mitchy, controversial activist VeryDarkMan (VDM), and Seyi Tinubu, the son of the President .
Image Suggestion: A balanced graphic showing portraits of the three main figures—Seyi Tinubu, King Mitchy, and VeryDarkMan—with scales of justice in the center, tilting slightly.
The crisis erupted after King Mitchy publicly acknowledged financial support from Seyi Tinubu for her humanitarian activities. VeryDarkMan responded with a blistering public criticism of both her and the President’s son, using language the NCSCN described as implying “immoral and sexual activities in very strong and offensive language not acceptable in media or public space” .
The NCSCN’s intervention is notable for its attempt to dissect the controversy with nuance. The Council stated that over “80 per cent of the criticisms and attention was placed on Seyi Tinubu,” questioning why he was singled out for attack when King Mitchy had previously acknowledged other donors like Don Jazzy, and VDM himself had acknowledged benefactors such as Burna Boy . The core question posed by the Council was: “What is really wrong in a businessman or son of a President supporting a humanitarian cause?”
This question exposes a deep-seated tension in Nigerian public discourse. On one hand, there is a pervasive suspicion of the motives of the political elite. On the other, the NCSCN argues that financial donations to NGOs are commonplace globally, and that attacking such gestures risks discouraging private individuals from supporting charitable causes out of fear of public backlash .
However, the Council did not let King Mitchy off the hook. It condemned her reaction—which reportedly included a video depicting the drinking of a poisonous substance—as “immature and socially harmful.” They warned that such content encourages suicide and damages mental health, especially among impressionable teenagers .
The saga highlights the volatile mix of politics, philanthropy, and online celebrity culture. For the NCSCN, the “political dimension” was the key reason for intervention. The incident illustrates how any interaction with a member of the First Family is automatically politicized, stripping it of its humanitarian context. At the same time, the extreme reactions from online personalities demonstrate how the race for engagement can lead to dangerous and irresponsible content. The Council’s verdict serves as a warning: critics must maintain “context and proper perspective with genuine intention and civil language,” while public figures must understand that their actions, no matter how benevolent, will be scrutinized under a microscope .
