Arise TV: How not to throw a man under the bus

There is a difference between holding someone accountable and publicly distancing an institution from that person when controversy arrives. The distinction becomes particularly important when the institution has repeatedly given that person a platform, benefited from their expertise and presented them to its audience as a credible voice. 

When allegations emerge, an institution has every right to reassess the relationship, but how it does so can reveal as much about its own values as it does about the person at the centre of the controversy. The unfolding case involving Arise News and Anthony Kila offers an opportunity to examine this uncomfortable question.

For years, Kila appeared on television programmes as a political analyst, offering opinions on governance, public policy and national affairs. His interventions were part of the broader ecosystem of Nigerian broadcast journalism, in which media organisations rely on academics, lawyers, economists, political commentators and other professionals to interpret events for the public. 

Such appearances do more than give guests an opportunity to speak. The platform itself can confer a degree of public credibility, particularly when viewers repeatedly encounter a contributor introduced with impressive academic and professional titles. That relationship came under scrutiny after Premium Times published an investigation on October 3, 2026, questioning Kila’s claim to professorial status. 

The newspaper reported that it could not establish that the institution he identified as having awarded him the title existed. Kila maintained that he was a professor and stood by his credentials, but his response, as reported by the newspaper, did not provide documentary evidence resolving the questions raised. On October 10, Premium Times published a second investigation questioning the bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral and other qualifications Kila had claimed to hold. The newspaper reported discrepancies involving several institutions and programmes associated with those claims.

These were weighty allegations, not trivial disagreements over professional etiquette or the use of titles. Academic credentials can influence appointments, institutional authority and public trust. Where questions arise about whether qualifications were genuinely earned, the public has a legitimate interest in obtaining clear answers. 

Kila also has a responsibility to substantiate his claims, and the institutions associated with his credentials have a responsibility to establish the facts. Neither public familiarity nor a reputation for eloquence should exempt anyone from scrutiny. ARISE News was therefore entitled to examine whether it should continue featuring Kila. 

According to the network, it contacted him on October 3, presented the allegations and granted him additional time to respond. ARISE said he had not responded after 10 days and that the allegations had become more serious. On October 13, it announced that he would no longer appear on its television channel or any of its other platforms, either immediately or in the future. The controversy, however, is not simply about whether ARISE could stop featuring him. Of course, it could. The more interesting question concerns the language and finality of the announcement. 

Rather than communicate a decision to suspend his appearances pending clarification, the network declared that he would never again appear on its platforms. It also stressed that it had been unaware of the allegations when he previously appeared as a freelance political analyst and that it took credibility and integrity seriously. The expression “throwing someone under the bus” describes a situation in which an individual is sacrificed, exposed or abandoned to protect the interests of others. The expression does not automatically mean that the person being abandoned is innocent or that the institution must continue supporting them. 

Rather, it raises questions about the manner in which an institution withdraws its support, especially when the relationship has previously been mutually beneficial. In Kila’s case, the concern is not that ARISE should have defended questionable credentials. It is whether the network needed to make its departure so categorical and public at that particular stage. ARISE could have explained that it was reviewing Kila’s status as a contributor in light of the investigations and that his appearances would remain suspended until the questions were resolved. 

Nevertheless, the episode offers a reminder that credibility cannot rest entirely on a guest’s self-description. Verification should be part of the editorial process, not merely a reaction to a scandal after it has broken. The same principle applies beyond broadcasting.  Universities, corporations, professional associations and public institutions frequently celebrate people when their credentials and reputations enhance institutional standing, only to distance themselves from them when allegations threaten to become damaging. Sometimes a decisive separation is necessary, particularly where evidence of misconduct is compelling or the institution has an immediate duty to protect the public. 

But where questions remain under examination, institutions should be able to protect their interests without abandoning the principles of proportionality and fairness. Accountability should not become an exercise in demonstrating how quickly an institution can disown someone. None of this diminishes the work of investigative journalism. Premium Times deserves to have its findings examined on their evidence, and the questions it raised about Kila’s academic history demand substantive answers. It would be equally wrong to attack the newspaper merely because its reporting has damaged a prominent figure’s reputation. 

Ultimately, the Anthony Kila controversy is bigger than one analyst losing access to a television platform. It raises questions about the verification of expertise, the responsibilities of media organisations and the conduct of institutions when a familiar contributor becomes the subject of damaging investigations. Kila must answer the questions about his credentials. ARISE, meanwhile, must be judged not only by its decision to stop featuring him but also by the standards it applies to the presentation of expertise and the way it handles reputational crises. 

Abdusalam Mahmud, 

Deputy Editor of PRNigeria,

Abuja 

[email protected].