NUC AND ABUSE OF HONORARY DOCTORATES

The NUC’s guidelines on honorary doctorate degrees are in order, writes  FELIX OLADEJI

​​

The decision by the National Universities Commission (NUC) to sanction universities over the “indiscriminate conferment and misuse” of honorary doctorate degrees marks a necessary, if long overdue, intervention in Nigeria’s higher education landscape. The commission’s recent statement underscores an uncomfortable truth: the integrity of academic recognition has been compromised by practices that blur the line between genuine scholarly honour and transactional title-giving.

Honorary doctorate degrees have a storied place in global academic tradition. They are intended to recognise individuals whose contributions to society in the arts, sciences, public service, or civic life embody the values a university cherishes. Historically, such honours were sparingly conferred, presented at formal convocations, and treated with respect as symbolic acknowledgements rather than substitutes for earned academic credentials. But in recent years, the meaning of “honoris causa” has become muddled in the Nigerian context, bruising both public perception and institutional credibility.

The NUC has framed its new 16-point guidelines for the awarding and use of honorary doctorates as a regulatory response to this problem. Among the stipulations are requirements that only approved universities may award honorary degrees, that recipients must be selected through transparent procedures, that self-nominations and awards to serving public officials be prohibited, and that recipients must refrain from using “Dr.” as though the title were earned through rigorous academic work.

If enforced, these measures could restore a sense of dignity to a practice that has in some instances devolved into a spectacle. The commission’s concern is hardly abstract: past investigations found a troubling presence of unaccredited and unlicensed institutions operating as honorary degree mills, some even issuing fraudulent professorships alongside degrees. This not only erodes the meaning of academic titles but also sends the wrong message to a society already struggling with issues of institutional trust and professional credibility.

At its core, the problem is not simply about semantics; it is about academic honour and public trust. When ceremonial degrees are awarded too widely, too loosely, or without clear standards, the public begins to question the worth of academic achievement altogether including the hard-earned doctoral degrees that signify years of original research and intellectual toil. In recent years, social commentators and academic observers have lamented the proliferation of self-styled “Drs” whose society assumes they hold earned doctorates, only to discover that their credentials are nominal or even purchased.

This matters because in a world where knowledge economies increasingly define national competitiveness, the credibility of academic institutions is foundational to societal progress. Universities shape not only the intellectual future of a nation but also its moral climate. When the lines between earned and honorary credentials blur, the public’s ability to distinguish between expertise and entitlement begins to erode. This erosion weakens not only the academic sector, but also broader debates about evidence, expertise, and merit.

The NUC’s insistence that recipients should use the designation “honoris causa” rather than prefix “Dr” to their names reflects this distinction. The prefix “Dr” has specific academic and professional implications. It signifies mastery of a field through rigorous research and evaluation, a standard far removed from ceremonial recognition. By insisting on clear nomenclature, the commission is not merely enforcing bureaucratic rules; it is defending the concept of what it means to be a scholar.

Yet, regulatory guidelines alone are not enough. Enforcement is critical. The NUC has warned that sanctions will be imposed on institutions that violate the approved framework, and that relevant enforcement agencies will be engaged in clamping down on illegal degree-conferment schemes. This is a necessary first step, but it must be matched with sustained oversight, transparent reporting, and perhaps legislative backing that criminalises abuses rather than leaving enforcement to administrative fiat.

There is also a broader cultural conversation that must unfold. Universities are not ivory towers insulated from societal expectations. They are public institutions that reflect and shape national values. If universities treat honorary degrees as cheap accolades, political favours, or revenue opportunities, they diminish the very standards they are meant to uphold. Nigerian universities must resist the temptation to view honorary degrees as public relations tools, and instead reserve them for individuals whose lifetime contributions genuinely reflect excellence, innovation, and service.

This conversation must also include the public. Media, civil society, and professional bodies have a role to play in distinguishing between scholarly achievement and ceremonial recognition. Misuse of academic titles is not merely a matter of university regulation; it is a societal conversation about how we value authenticity, expertise, and hard work.

Perhaps most importantly, the NUC’s intervention highlights the importance of institutional accountability in higher education. When regulatory bodies act decisively to protect standards, they affirm that academic legitimacy cannot be bought or manipulated. In doing so, they reinforce a culture of meritocracy — a value that is essential if Nigeria hopes to nurture homegrown scholars capable of contributing to global intellectual discourse.

If this initiative succeeds, it could restore confidence in the nation’s university system, strengthen Nigeria’s academic standing on the international stage, and reclaim the honour that honorary degrees once symbolised. But if implementation falters, or if guidelines remain aspirational without teeth, the underlying problem will persist and the public’s cynicism will deepen.

In the end, academic integrity is not a luxury; it is a prerequisite for societal progress. The NUC’s new guidelines are an important step toward that ideal. But the journey toward credible, respected, and rigorous Nigerian universities requires not only regulation, but cultural commitment from institutions, scholars, and society at large.

Oladeji writes from

Lagos