The PREMIUM TIMES investigation raises a question that goes far beyond one public commentator: how can a society that claims to value education, competence and accountability allow professional reputations to grow for years without independently verifying the credentials behind them?
Nigeria has spent decades debating the quality of its education system, the credibility of its institutions and the character of the people who occupy positions of influence. Yet a scandal involving Anthony Kila, a familiar voice in Nigerian public affairs, has exposed another problem: the ease with which academic prestige can become a substitute for independently verified expertise.
On 3 October 2026, PREMIUM TIMES published an investigation reporting that Kila had falsely presented himself as a professor and as a “Jean Monnet Professor of Strategy and Development.” On 10 October, the newspaper published a second investigation alleging that several of his claimed university degrees were also fabricated. The findings concern a man who served as pro-chancellor of Michael and Cecilia Ibru University in Delta State and who regularly appeared in public discussions about governance and public life.
The allegations are serious. But the most important lesson is not simply that a prominent figure may have misrepresented his academic standing. It is that multiple layers of public and institutional trust appear to have operated without the level of verification such claims deserved.
Read the first PREMIUM TIMES investigation | Read the second investigation
Eight qualifications, multiple institutions and troubling contradictions
According to PREMIUM TIMES, Kila provided a list of eight academic qualifications he claimed to have earned between 1989 and 2009.
The list included a bachelor's degree and master's degree supposedly obtained in Italy, a postgraduate diploma from the University of Essex, a master's degree associated with City University London, a doctorate from the University of Perugia, an MBA from Aston University, and two qualifications he said he obtained from the University of Cambridge.
The newspaper contacted the institutions and compared their responses with Kila's stated qualifications and the programmes they offered during the periods in question.
Some of the resulting discrepancies were substantial.
Aston University and the MBA: The university reportedly told PREMIUM TIMES that its student registry contained no record of an Anthony Kila studying for an MBA. That is a direct contradiction of his stated qualification, according to the institution's response as reported by the newspaper.
City St George's, University of London: The university reportedly said Kila enrolled in a one-year Banking and International Finance programme in September 2000, but was deregistered in June 2001 without completing it. This conflicts with his claim that he obtained an MSc in International Banking and Finance from City University London in 1994. The newspaper's account does not establish why he was deregistered or which prior qualification he used to enrol.
University of Essex: The university reportedly said it had never offered the postgraduate diploma in Media and Communication that Kila claimed to have obtained in 1992.
Università per Stranieri in Perugia: PREMIUM TIMES reported that the institution's historical records showed it did not offer the bachelor's degree in Classical Studies or the master's degree in European Studies he claimed to have earned there in 1989 and 1991. The newspaper also contacted the institution in Siena and reported that it did not offer those programmes either.
University of Perugia: The newspaper reported that the university did not offer the PhD in Political Economy Kila claimed to have received in 1997.
These are not merely questions about whether somebody has displayed a certificate correctly. They concern whether the claimed qualifications and programmes can be reconciled with institutional records.
The Cambridge claims require more careful wording. The university had not responded to the newspaper's enquiry about the alleged 2009 LLM at the time of publication. PREMIUM TIMES questioned the claim because Kila's disclosed academic history did not show the law degree normally required for admission. The newspaper also reported that the particular higher-education certificate he claimed to have received in 2006 was not offered under that description and that the closest programme began in 2017.
Those findings raise serious questions, but the Cambridge allegations should not be described as independently confirmed by the university unless further evidence emerges.
The distinction matters: good investigative reporting should establish what the evidence proves, identify what it strongly suggests and acknowledge what remains unresolved.
Source: PREMIUM TIMES, 10 October 2026.
The professorship controversy came first
The investigation into Kila's degrees followed an earlier investigation into his professorial title.
PREMIUM TIMES reported that Kila said the European Centre for Advanced and Professional Studies awarded him a professorship in 2016. The newspaper said it could find no evidence that the named institution existed in the form described. It also reported that the European Education and Culture Executive Agency, which administers the European Union's Jean Monnet actions, disowned the claimed Jean Monnet professorship.
The implications are significant because academic titles are not simply decorative additions to a person's name. They can signal research experience, scholarly standing, institutional recognition and professional achievement. They can also influence how journalists introduce guests, how universities present their leadership and how members of the public assess an individual's authority.
A title can therefore create credibility before anyone examines the evidence behind it.
That is precisely why universities, broadcasters, conference organisers, publishers and professional bodies must verify important claims instead of relying on biographies supplied by the people being profiled.
How did the claims go unchallenged for so long?
This is arguably the most consequential question in the entire affair.
Kila appeared in Nigerian media discussions and was repeatedly described as a professor. His public profiles presented him as an accomplished academic and professional. His association with a university's governing leadership added another layer of institutional legitimacy.
Yet the investigation suggests that elementary verification questions were not adequately resolved before those credentials were repeated and relied upon.
There are several possible reasons such situations can persist.
First, repetition can be mistaken for verification. When several media outlets, event organisers and institutions use the same title, each may assume somebody else has checked it. A claim acquires the appearance of truth through circulation rather than evidence.
Second, prestige can discourage scrutiny. International universities, advanced degrees and impressive academic titles carry considerable weight in Nigeria. People may be reluctant to challenge someone whose biography appears to place them above ordinary scrutiny.
Third, institutions may rely too heavily on submitted biographies. If a university, media organisation or conference organiser accepts a person's CV without checking awarding institutions, it effectively transfers its own credibility to an unverified claim.
Finally, accountability can be selective. Nigerian public debate frequently demands transparency from politicians and public officials. But the same standard must apply to commentators, consultants, academics and other influential people who publicly lecture society about honesty.
These are systemic vulnerabilities, not proof that every institution or media organisation involved knowingly ignored the truth. Establishing who knew what, and when, would require additional evidence.
The university must answer its own questions
The controversy is not limited to Kila's personal reputation.
PREMIUM TIMES reported that Michael and Cecilia Ibru University removed his profile from its website and subsequently asked him to step aside as pro-chancellor pending an investigation. The university said its decision reflected its commitment to academic integrity, transparency and sound institutional governance.
That response is a necessary first step. It is not the end of the matter.
A pro-chancellor is a senior figure in university governance. The public deserves to know how the institution verified his professorial status and academic qualifications before appointing him, what documentation it examined, and whether any decisions were made on the basis of those credentials.
The university should publish the outcome of its investigation, subject to applicable law and due process. It should also explain whether its appointment procedures require independent verification of degrees, professional titles and previous academic appointments.
Removing a profile from a website may stop the immediate circulation of a disputed biography. It does not explain how the profile was approved in the first place.
If a university cannot demonstrate that it verified the qualifications of a senior governing official, it raises legitimate questions about the reliability of its wider appointment procedures.
Nigeria's credibility problem is bigger than one individual
Nigeria has a genuine need for expertise. The country faces difficult problems in education, public finance, security, technology, healthcare and economic development. Addressing them requires people whose knowledge can withstand scrutiny.
That makes the casual use of academic titles particularly damaging.
A degree does not automatically make someone intelligent, honest or competent. Equally, a person without a doctorate can be knowledgeable and capable. The issue is not elitism or the worship of certificates. It is the right of institutions and the public to know whether qualifications being used to establish authority are genuine.
When credentials are misrepresented, the harm extends beyond one person's reputation. Genuine scholars can be crowded out by people who market an appearance of expertise. Students and staff may lose confidence in university governance. Journalists may give undue weight to commentators whose authority rests on inaccurate biographies. Employers and institutions may make decisions on a false understanding of someone's background.
For a country that already struggles with concerns about certificate fraud, impersonation and weak enforcement, high-profile allegations of this kind are especially corrosive.
The appropriate response is not to conclude that all academics are fraudulent. It is to insist that every claim of academic distinction should be verifiable.
What should happen next?
Three actions are necessary.
First, Kila should provide documentary evidence. He told PREMIUM TIMES that he was gathering his academic and professional records and that the documents would be ready. If he disputes the investigation, the most useful response would be to produce the relevant certificates, transcripts and verification authorisations, allowing the institutions concerned to confirm their authenticity.
Second, the university should disclose its verification process and findings. Its investigation should establish what documents were submitted, whether awarding institutions were contacted, and what steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence.
Third, the relevant authorities should follow the evidence. PREMIUM TIMES reported on 6 October that the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission had constituted a team to investigate the professorial-title allegations, including whether the university benefited from the claimed status. Any further action should depend on independently established facts and the applicable law, not public outrage alone.
Media organisations should also review their verification practices. When a person is introduced as a professor, doctor, lawyer or other credentialed expert, editors should establish the basis for that title rather than simply reproducing a public profile.
The final test is evidence
The most disturbing aspect of this story is not the number of degrees listed on a CV. It is the possibility that a carefully constructed public image can acquire institutional legitimacy without adequate independent checks.
The PREMIUM TIMES investigation presents serious evidence against several of Kila's claimed qualifications, including reported university statements that contradict his account. Some other claims, particularly those concerning Cambridge, still require clarification from the institutions or further documentary evidence.
Kila has said he is gathering his records. The public should be able to assess whatever evidence he produces, and the institutions involved should be given the opportunity to clarify their findings.
But one principle should not be negotiable: a person's authority must not be allowed to substitute for proof of their credentials.
Nigeria does not need more impressive titles. It needs institutions willing to verify them, media organisations prepared to ask uncomfortable questions, and public figures held to the same standards of honesty they demand from everyone else.
If the allegations are substantiated in full, the consequences should follow through lawful and transparent procedures. If any part of the investigation is challenged successfully, the record should be corrected just as publicly.
That is what accountability looks like: not blind condemnation, not protection of influential people, but evidence, verification and consequences where the facts justify them.
Comments
Post a Comment