Nigeria vs US: When Journalists Question the Credentials of Powerful People
Questions about the professional credentials of two influential figures in Nigeria and the United States have brought investigative journalism, institutional accountability and public trust into focus.
In Nigeria, an investigation by Premium Times questioned the professorship and academic qualifications of Anthony Kila, the suspended Pro-Chancellor of Michael and Cecilia Ibru University. In the United States, a Reuters investigation raised questions about the legal credentials of Katie Zacharia, the new White House press secretary under President Donald Trump.
Although the cases concern different professions and institutions, both raise a common question: how should journalists verify the credentials of influential people, and what should happen when their findings challenge the public profiles of those individuals?
The investigations also provide an opportunity to examine the role of documentary evidence, institutional verification and the responses of the people whose professional backgrounds have come under scrutiny.
Nigeria: Premium Times investigates Anthony Kila’s professorship
On October 3, 2026, Premium Times published an investigation questioning the professorial title used by Anthony Kila, who was appointed Pro-Chancellor of Michael and Cecilia Ibru University in August 2025.
The newspaper reported that Kila had publicly presented himself as a professor and a Jean Monnet Professor of Strategy and Development but found no evidence that a recognised academic institution had awarded him a professorial title.
According to the investigation, Kila told the newspaper that the European Centre for Advanced and Professional Studies, which he said was based in Cambridge, United Kingdom, had awarded him the professorship in 2016.
Premium Times reported that its searches of the UK Companies House, Nigeria’s Corporate Affairs Commission and other sources did not establish the existence of the institution he identified.
The newspaper also reported that the European Centre for Advanced Studies, an institution established by the University of Glasgow and Leuphana University, Germany, said it had no connection with Kila.
The European Education and Culture Executive Agency, which administers the Jean Monnet Actions, also reportedly said it had no knowledge of him.
Kila subsequently maintained that he was a professor and stood by the credentials on which the title was based. In a response reported by Premium Times on October 5, he said he was prepared to make relevant facts and documents available.
However, the newspaper reported that his response did not resolve its questions about the institution he said had awarded him the title.
The investigation subsequently expanded beyond his professorship.
In a follow-up report published on October 10, Premium Times said its enquiries had uncovered problems with Kila’s claimed bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral qualifications.
The newspaper listed degrees and other qualifications Kila said he had obtained from institutions in Italy and the United Kingdom, including the University of Essex, City University London, the University of Perugia, Aston University and the University of Cambridge.
Premium Times reported that several institutions either disputed his claimed qualifications or indicated that they did not offer the programmes he said he had completed. It also explained that data-protection requirements had initially limited some of its verification efforts.
When presented with the findings, Kila told the newspaper that he was compiling his academic and professional documents and that they would be ready soon.
The reports have therefore raised questions about the evidence supporting his professorship and other academic claims. The precise findings concerning each qualification must, however, be distinguished according to the responses and documentary evidence reported for each institution.
Sources: Premium Times investigations published on October 3 and October 10, 2026.
United States: Reuters questions Katie Zacharia’s legal credentials
In the United States, Reuters reported on October 14 that Katie Zacharia, who joined the White House as press secretary on October 12, faced questions about her legal career before entering politics.
President Donald Trump has described Zacharia as an attorney. She has also said she practised law before joining politics.
However, Reuters reported that it could not find records showing that she was registered as an attorney or member of the bar in any US state or the District of Columbia.
According to her LinkedIn profile, Zacharia worked as an associate at Zhong Lun Law Firm in Beijing from 2011 to 2013 and served as general counsel at Fix California, an advocacy group, from 2024 to 2025.
Ric Grenell, who founded Fix California, told Reuters that Zacharia had served as a senior adviser and performed different roles, including leading the outside counsel who acted as lawyers for the organisation.
Zacharia defended her professional background in a statement to Reuters.
“I practiced international transaction law, with all the appropriate credentials,” she said.
Reuters also reported that Zacharia earned a law degree from Pepperdine University in 2011. However, a law degree and admission to practise law are distinct qualifications in the United States.
When a reporter asked her where she had passed the bar examination, Zacharia replied that it was when she moved to China.
Reuters explained that Chinese law requires practising lawyers to be Chinese nationals, although foreign staff can advise and consult on legal matters without practising as Chinese lawyers.
The White House did not respond to Reuters’ questions about Zacharia’s legal background and credentials.
The distinction is important: Reuters’ inability to find a record of her admission to a US bar does not, by itself, establish every detail of her professional history. Her explanation about her international transactional work and the precise credentials she says she holds remain relevant to a complete account of the controversy.
The central issue raised by the investigation is whether her publicly described legal career accurately reflects the qualifications and professional authorisations she holds.
Source: Reuters, October 14, 2026.
Two investigations, different professional standards
At first glance, the Nigerian and American cases appear similar because both involve questions about the professional credentials of prominent individuals.
However, the professions involved require different forms of verification.
In the Nigerian case, the central question is whether Kila was awarded the professorial title he used publicly and whether his claimed academic qualifications can be substantiated by the institutions named.
A professorship is an academic rank whose meaning and requirements depend on the relevant institution and academic system. Establishing that someone holds the rank ordinarily requires evidence of the appointment or award from an institution authorised to confer it.
In the American case, the principal question is whether Zacharia’s description of herself as an attorney accurately reflects her professional qualifications and authorisation to practise law.
In the United States, legal practice is generally regulated through state bars and other authorised jurisdictions. Graduating from law school is not, by itself, equivalent to obtaining a licence to practise.
Consequently, the verification process differs.
For an academic title, journalists may need to contact the awarding institution, examine appointment records and establish the institution’s academic status.
For a legal qualification, reporters may need to check bar admission records, contact relevant regulators and establish precisely what legal work the individual performed and under which authorisation.
The cases cannot be treated as identical simply because they both involve questions about professional titles.
The common issue: What does the evidence establish?
One important similarity between the investigations is the role of independent verification.
Premium Times sought to establish the academic basis for Kila’s professorship and investigate his claimed degrees. Reuters examined Zacharia’s professional history and searched for records of her admission to practise law in the United States.
Both investigations went beyond relying solely on public biographies or statements made by the individuals concerned.
That approach reflects a basic principle of investigative journalism: claims about professional credentials should be checked against reliable records and, where possible, independently confirmed by the institutions or regulators responsible for them.
Nevertheless, a missing record and a proven falsehood are not always interchangeable.
A journalist who cannot locate a professional licence has established a limitation in the available evidence. Further enquiries may be needed to determine whether the licence was never issued, was issued under another name, belongs to another jurisdiction or is subject to a different regulatory arrangement.
Similarly, an institution’s refusal to disclose a person’s educational records because of privacy requirements does not establish that the person never attended that institution.
In Kila’s case, Premium Times reported more specific findings involving institutions that disputed particular claims or said they did not offer the programmes he identified. Those findings should be assessed individually rather than reduced to a general statement that every qualification was disproved in precisely the same way.
In Zacharia’s case, the absence of a located US bar record must be considered alongside her statement that she had the appropriate credentials and her account of working in international transactional law.
These distinctions do not make investigative reporting less important. They explain why careful verification and precise language are essential.
Who should verify credentials before an appointment?
The controversies also raise questions about institutional responsibility.
Kila was serving as Pro-Chancellor of Michael and Cecilia Ibru University when Premium Times published its initial investigation. His position made the university’s understanding of his academic background a matter of public interest.
Zacharia’s appointment as White House press secretary placed her in a prominent government communications role. Although a legal licence is not a stated prerequisite for serving as White House press secretary, questions about her public claims of being an attorney have attracted scrutiny.
The two appointments therefore involve different requirements.
A university governing position may make academic credentials relevant to an individual’s public profile, but the requirements for holding that position should be established from the applicable rules rather than assumed.
Likewise, the White House press secretary’s principal responsibility is communicating the administration’s positions to the press. Being a licensed attorney is not necessary to perform that role.
The question surrounding Zacharia is not whether a press secretary must be a lawyer. It is whether descriptions of her legal background accurately represent her qualifications and professional experience.
Employers, universities, government offices and other institutions can reduce uncertainty by independently verifying relevant qualifications before making appointments.
When questions subsequently emerge, institutions can explain what checks were conducted and whether additional verification is under way, subject to applicable privacy and legal requirements.
Such procedures help separate an individual’s claims from the institution’s own findings.
Why the comparison matters to Nigeria and the United States
The two investigations concern people operating in different political, academic and professional environments. Yet both demonstrate why the public may have an interest in verifying the credentials of people who occupy influential positions.
In Nigeria, the Kila investigation has drawn attention to how an academic title and claimed qualifications were presented publicly, including on institutional websites.
In the United States, the Zacharia investigation has drawn attention to the difference between earning a law degree, performing legal work and being admitted to practise law in a particular jurisdiction.
Neither case establishes that every person who uses a professional title without readily available documentation has acted dishonestly. Each case must be assessed on its own evidence.
What the cases do demonstrate is the importance of examining the specific claim being made, identifying the authority responsible for confirming it and seeking a response from the person concerned.
They also show why public institutions should have clear processes for verifying credentials that are material to appointments or official biographies.
For journalists, the responsibility is to report what the evidence supports, explain what remains unresolved and correct the record if new information changes the findings.
For institutions, the challenge is to ensure that professional claims are not accepted without appropriate checks.
For the public, the lesson is to distinguish a documented finding from an allegation, an individual’s response and a conclusion reached by a competent authority.
Conclusion: Beyond the titles
The controversies involving Anthony Kila and Katie Zacharia have placed professional credibility under scrutiny on two sides of the Atlantic.
In Nigeria, Premium Times has reported findings concerning Kila’s professorship and academic qualifications. In the United States, Reuters has reported that it could not find evidence of Zacharia’s admission to practise law in a US jurisdiction, while Zacharia maintains that she practised international transactional law with the appropriate credentials.
The cases differ in their professional requirements, the evidence reported and the questions that remain unresolved.
Their broader significance lies in the need for verifiable records, independent scrutiny and clear institutional procedures.
A professional title can influence how the public perceives an individual. The evidence supporting that title, however, must remain open to appropriate verification.
The question for both countries is not whether prominent people should be beyond scrutiny, but how journalists and institutions can establish the facts fairly, accurately and transparently when questions arise about their credentials.
