By Chibuike Nwabuko
The recent remarks by the Media Aide to the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister, Lere Olayinka’s to Rufai Oseni, suggesting that his background in animal anatomy disqualifies him from anchoring a programme on Arise TV and better suits him for producing documentaries on animals, is not only deeply condescending but also intellectually dishonest. It reflects a dangerous tendency in public discourse where personal attacks are used to delegitimize individuals based on their academic or professional background, rather than addressing the substance of their contributions. Such statements are rooted in a narrow, elitist mindset that devalues interdisciplinary knowledge and fails to recognize the diverse paths that can lead to excellence in journalism, media, and public engagement.
This form of rhetoric is especially troubling in a democratic society where the strength of the media lies in its diversity of thought, background, and experience. Rufai Oseni’s professional competence and incisive journalism have been evident to audiences regardless of his field of study. Attempting to diminish his role by referencing his academic credentials is an attempt to silence critical voices through ridicule, rather than through reasoned argument or constructive dialogue. It perpetuates a toxic political and media culture where character assassination replaces debate, and expertise is measured only through conformity to conventional paths.
Furthermore, Olayinka’s remark subtly reinforces a harmful stigma against certain academic disciplines, as if the study of animal anatomy is less valuable or meaningful. This not only insults those who have dedicated their lives to scientific research but also undermines the broader principle that all fields of knowledge contribute meaningfully to public life. Journalism benefits from perspectives rooted in science, arts, humanities, and beyond. The attempt to pigeonhole individuals based on academic credentials is an affront to the spirit of intellectual curiosity and professional versatility that should define a healthy, democratic media landscape.
Fast forward to politics in Nigeria’s complex political landscape. It is particularly glaring in the makeup of our political class that a significant number of those wielding power in Abuja and across the states never studied political science or anything remotely close to it. From engineering to zoology, and in some cases, courses with no tangible relation to governance or policy-making. This reality raises a pressing question: why is political authority not reserved for political science graduates, and why should intelligent citizens outside the field be disqualified from holding power to account?
Yet, there is a growing trend that seeks to silence critics, especially young media practitioners, on the basis of their academic backgrounds. When a sharp and principled media personality asks tough questions or challenges flawed narratives, some resort to the tired refrain: “Focus on what you studied.” This argument is not only intellectually lazy but also fundamentally dishonest. It is a diversion tactic, an attempt to escape accountability by attacking the messenger instead of addressing the message.
Such deflections are not just unfair; they are sycophantic. They shield politicians from scrutiny under the guise of academic gatekeeping, while ignoring that governance is a public trust that affects everyone, not just those with specific degrees. To say that only political science graduates are qualified to critique politics is to suggest that only doctors can care about health or that only engineers can complain about bad roads. It is a logic that collapses under the weight of its own absurdity.
In truth, what Nigeria needs is not less citizen participation but more of it, especially from individuals who are articulate, informed, and bold enough to challenge power. Media professionals, in particular, play a critical role in shaping public discourse and holding leaders accountable. Their effectiveness is not determined by their academic specialization but by their integrity, insight, and courage to speak truth to power.
Furthermore, the same critics who shout “stay in your lane” when challenged are often the ones applauding musicians, actors, and athletes who venture into politics or advocacy, provided they echo the right sentiments. The selective application of this “expertise” standard betrays its real purpose which is to silence dissent and protect vested interests. It is not about standards; it is about shielding the powerful from discomfort.
Nigeria’s democracy cannot thrive on such hollow arguments. We must foster a culture where truth matters more than titles, and where ideas are judged on their merit, not the CV of the person who expresses them. Instead of bullying voices that demand accountability, we should be amplifying them. Our future depends not on who speaks, but on what is said and whether we have the courage to listen.
Mr Chibuike Nwabuko, an Economist, Political Analyst and Human Right Crusader writes in from Abuja.
