The allegations raised by Premium Times’ investigation into the credentials of Anthony Kila, a self-styled intellectual and political analyst who uses the title “Jean Monnet Professor of Strategy and Development”, have once again raised important questions about the people Nigeria celebrates as public intellectuals.
As far as I am concerned, many of these personalities are, at best, talking heads. They are creatures of television screens, manufactured by a media culture that often mistakes eloquence for intellectual depth and the ability to criticise those in power for evidence of exceptional scholarship.
This trend gained prominence during the military era, when individuals who could speak truth to power with confidence and impressive oratory were elevated to the status of intellectuals. Over time, some of these personalities acquired a form of public immunity, allowing them to operate with little scrutiny even as they scrutinised everyone else.
The problem is not that these individuals speak on television or criticise the government. A vibrant democracy needs commentators, analysts and public intellectuals who can challenge authority. The problem arises when the authority they acquire from public visibility becomes a shield against legitimate questions about their own credentials, expertise and conduct.
The controversy surrounding Kila brings this contradiction into sharp focus.
In his response, published by Vanguard Newspaper, Kila rejected allegations that he falsely claimed to be a professor and threatened legal action. He also expressed surprise at the attention generated by the investigation, arguing that he does not hold political office, is not seeking one and is not a government official.
But why should the absence of public office exempt anyone from public scrutiny?
The suggestion that scrutiny should primarily apply to elected officials and government appointees is difficult to defend, particularly when the individual concerned has built a public profile by analysing political leaders, public institutions and governance. Public influence does not begin and end with political office. People who shape public opinion, influence policy conversations and enjoy the credibility associated with academic titles also have responsibilities to the public.
More importantly, the questions raised by the investigation deserve clear answers. What institution awarded the professorship? Does that institution exist in the form described? What are the qualifications and processes underpinning the title? These are legitimate questions, not necessarily a campaign of persecution.
Threatening legal action does not, in itself, resolve them. Nor does expressing surprise at the level of public interest. If anything, a clear and verifiable explanation would help establish the facts and allow the public to make an informed judgment.
Consider the controversy surrounding Jason Arday, the former University of Cambridge professor of sociology of education, who faced plagiarism allegations and questions about aspects of his academic work. Arday denied plagiarism while acknowledging errors in his work. The controversy also prompted concerns about the level of public scrutiny and personal attacks directed at him.
The comparison is not intended to suggest that the allegations in the two cases are equivalent. Rather, it illustrates a broader principle: academic credentials and professional reputations can be questioned, and people who occupy influential positions may be required to answer those questions, regardless of whether they hold public office.
If scholars and public figures elsewhere can face scrutiny over their academic records, why should Nigeria develop a special standard for its own television commentators?
The more troubling question, however, is how Nigeria came to celebrate certain personalities as intellectual authorities in the first place.
Is Kila as intellectually formidable as his public image suggests? That is a matter of opinion, and mine is that his television appearances have not convinced me of the exceptional depth often attributed to him. I have listened to him on several occasions and found much of what he says to be fairly conventional commentary delivered in polished English.
There is nothing wrong with speaking well. Communication is an important skill, and the ability to explain complex issues clearly should be valued. But eloquence is not the same as scholarship, just as confidence is not proof of expertise. A person can sound intelligent without demonstrating original research, rigorous analysis or a sustained contribution to knowledge.
The Nigerian public sphere often struggles to make these distinctions. We are too quick to elevate people who speak forcefully against those in power, sometimes treating their willingness to criticise government as sufficient evidence of intellectual distinction. In this environment, the phrase “speaking truth to power” can become a substitute for examining the quality of the argument being made.
There is also the question of expertise. Kila’s profile on the Commonwealth Institute of Advanced and Professional Studies (CIAPS) lists an extraordinary range of fields, including management, economics, political science, project management, business administration, finance, media and security.
Such breadth is not impossible. Interdisciplinary scholarship exists, and some individuals develop expertise across several fields. However, when a person claims competence in so many distinct disciplines, the public is entitled to ask what evidence supports that breadth of expertise. What research has the individual produced in these areas? What problems has the person investigated? What original contributions have they made?
These questions are not insults. They are the basic standards by which intellectual credibility should be assessed.
Nigeria must move beyond a culture in which television visibility, sophisticated vocabulary and political criticism are sufficient to confer intellectual authority. We need to distinguish between journalists, political commentators, academics, researchers and public intellectuals without assuming that one category automatically confers the credentials of another.
The media also has a responsibility in this regard. Television stations and other platforms frequently invite familiar personalities to discuss almost every issue, from the economy and security to constitutional reform and international relations. Familiarity can create an illusion of expertise, while repeated appearances reinforce the impression that a commentator possesses unusual authority.
The public, too, must resist the temptation to confuse disagreement with government with intellectual courage. A person can criticise those in power and still be wrong. A commentator can expose the shortcomings of public officials while remaining accountable for their own claims. These principles are not mutually exclusive.
Olalekan Adigun, an Abuja-based journalist and researcher, can be reached via email: [email protected] or on X: @MrLekanAdigun
