There comes a time in every intellectual exchange when one must tear away the thin veneer of sophistication to expose the festering mediocrity beneath. 

Sadly, Dr. Assan Jallow, in his latest tragic attempt at rebutting my critique, offers us just such an occasion. His response, cloaked in the pretence of scholarly discourse, crumbles upon inspection—revealing nothing more than a fragile facade propped up by inflated rhetoric and hollow argumentation. 

Dr. Jallow’s rebuttal, if it can be called that, of my critique of Dr. Mamadou Tangara’s candidacy for the Commonwealth Secretary-General post, is nothing short of a scholastic travesty—a clumsy, verbose display of intellectual vanity. His prose, an unholy amalgamation of inflated jargon and misguided metaphors, stands as a monument to his desperate need for validation. 

Rather than addressing the substance of my points, he hides behind a wall of pseudo-intellectual jargon and bizarre analogies, flinging insults like a petulant child denied dessert. It’s a pathetic display, really—one that would be amusing if it weren’t so deeply embarrassing.

Like the Shakespearean fool, blissfully unaware of his own folly, Dr. Jallow presents himself as a scholar when, in fact, his credentials are little more than a mirage. His performance is not that of an intellectual rigorist but rather a pantomime of one, plummeting headlong into the abyss of academic mediocrity.T.S. Eliot once described the world ending “not with a bang, but a whimper.” 

In much the same way, Dr. Jallow’s supposed rebuttal lands with all the gravitas of a damp squib—pathetic, feeble, and utterly devoid of substance. 

His opening salvo, a weak and misguided attempt at satire, is, quite frankly, the intellectual equivalent of a child toying with fireworks—reckless, clumsy, and inevitably doomed to end in disaster. 

In an almost Wildean parody of self-sabotage, Dr. Jallow’s imagery of me “whirling as a cultist propagandist” is as laughable as it is irrelevant. It smacks of the kind of overwrought nonsense that would leave even a Victorian penny dreadful editor shaking their head in pity.

If Dr. Jallow fancies himself an Oscar Wilde, I regret to inform him that his wit is more akin to Wilde’s Gwendolen from The Importance of Being Earnest—silly, vacuous, and desperately out of touch with reality. His ill-conceived metaphors do not enhance his argument but instead showcase the glaring void where intellectual rigour should reside. 

If his goal was to evoke laughter, then I must congratulate him, for it is indeed difficult to take such absurdity seriously. His rhetoric, bloated with self-importance, lands with all the subtlety of a Wodehousian farce but without any of the charm.

Indeed, if Dr. Jallow wishes to be taken seriously, he might first grow out of his intellectual diapers and learn the art of argumentation. Argumentation, after all, is not the mere hurling of insults or the stringing together of meaningless jargon, but a disciplined pursuit of truth that demands the careful weighing of evidence and the application of logic.

Plato, in his Republic, reminds us that true discourse is the dialectical process of self-correction—a path of humility that requires acknowledging one’s intellectual limitations and striving for greater understanding. It is a journey that Dr. Jallow seems wholly unprepared to embark upon.

What Dr. Jallow presents under the guise of academic rigour is, in reality, nothing more than a tawdry display of self-adulation, peppered with the empty pomp of a man who fancies himself a scholar but whose intellectual toolkit is more aligned with the delusional fantasies of Walter Mitty. 

His verbosity, his penchant for puerile insults, and his desperate attempts to appear relevant would be amusing were they not such a tragic reflection of the state of modern academia. He flings lofty metaphors with all the grace of a toddler finger-painting—creating a mess, but certainly no masterpiece.

His accusations of me “fuming profusely and combatively with self-deception” are as unfounded as they are melodramatic, revealing more about his own limitations than anything remotely linked to my critique. 

Like Wilde’s Lady Bracknell, who could find offence in the mere mention of a handbag, Dr. Jallow’s outrage is as misplaced as his metaphors—both ill-suited for serious discourse.

One would think, if Dr. Jallow had even an ounce of scholarly self-respect, that he might seize the opportunity in his rebuttal to correct his glaring omissions—to provide, dare I say, a shred of empirical data to support his claims. Yet, like a second-rate Dickens character, Dr. Jallow persists in his folly, refusing to engage in reasoned debate. Instead of offering facts, he hides behind the smoke and mirrors of florid language, his hollow phrases standing in for the substance that is so painfully absent.

Should Jallow wish to elevate himself from this tragic farce, he might take lessons in humility from the great British satirists—Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal comes to mind, though one suspects he would miss the irony entirely. 

Or perhaps a revisiting of Orwell’s timeless observations on clarity might do him well. True satire is rooted in incisive wit and critique, not the clumsy fumbling Jallow offers.

Jallow’s intellectual posturing is akin to the pompous Mr. Collins from Pride and Prejudice, filled with a misplaced sense of self-worth, desperately trying to impress but achieving nothing but laughter. His verbosity is not the mark of a scholar, but a man terrified of confronting the hollowness of his own argument. 

To paraphrase Austen, his overblown rhetoric leaves the impression that he is “most at home in a foolish, garrulous conversation.”

Dr. Jallow’s response is a tragicomic performance—long on pretension, short on logic, and devoid of empirical evidence. 

His vacuous personal attacks masquerading as academic argument are not only laughable but an insult to the very notion of scholarly discourse. As Oscar Wilde once quipped, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.” 

Sadly, Dr. Jallow has removed all doubt, confirming his own intellectual bankruptcy. His words, far from sharp and insightful, resemble the ravings of a man lost in his own self-importance.

Fittingly, Jallow concludes his response with a list of recommended readings, as if assigning homework will somehow lend weight to his hollow arguments. 

This exercise in pretension, hiding behind the works of others, reveals his inability to stand on his own intellectual merits. This is the tactic of a man hopelessly out of his depth—relying on the authority of others to mask his own inadequacies.

The most glaring flaw of Dr. Jallow’s intellectual façade is his complete and utter failure to cite a single credible source in his previous works. For someone who claims to value the rigours of academic writing, it is astonishing that his so-called scholarship is devoid of any meaningful reference to empirical evidence. 

In fact, a quick glance at his body of work reveals a troubling pattern: not only does he neglect to substantiate his arguments with proper sources, but the very papers he claims as his intellectual contributions have been published in predatory journals—those notorious black holes of academic dishonesty that prey on the vanity of mediocre academics.

Dr. Jallow’s penchant for publishing in these disreputable outlets reveals much about his character as a scholar—or rather, his lack thereof. Predatory journals are the refuge of those who seek academic accolades without doing the hard work required to earn them. 

They exist to exploit the insecurities of individuals like Dr. Jallow, who, despite their intellectual pretensions, lack the rigour, discipline, and integrity necessary to engage in serious academic discourse. His association with such journals is not merely a stain on his academic record; it is a damning indictment of his entire approach to scholarship.

Perhaps the most damning evidence of Dr. Jallow’s intellectual fraud, however, is the revelation that he has engaged in plagiarism. Yes, the so-called scholar who dares lecture others on the virtues of academic writing is guilty of the most egregious sin in academia: passing off someone else’s work as his own.

Plagiarism, as any real academic knows, is not merely a breach of ethics; it is a betrayal of the very foundation of scholarly discourse. By plagiarising, Dr. Jallow has exposed himself not just as a mediocre academic, but as a fraud who has built his entire career on dishonesty.

It is no wonder, then, that Dr. Jallow’s papers—such as they are—have been relegated to the wastelands of predatory journals. 

These journals, which have no standards of peer review, are the last refuge of those who lack the ability to produce original thought. They cater to individuals like Dr. Jallow, who, despite their posturing, are incapable of producing work that can stand up to scrutiny. By aligning himself with such outlets, Dr. Jallow has effectively disqualified himself from any serious intellectual conversation.

Let us not mince words: Dr. Assan Jallow is a perfect example of the kind of academic mediocrity that is poisoning our intellectual institutions. He represents a growing trend of so-called scholars who seek to climb the academic ladder by cutting corners, who value appearance over substance, and who are willing to engage in fraudulent behaviour to maintain their positions.

Such individuals are a blight on the academic community, and they must be exposed for what they are: intellectual frauds masquerading as academics.

Dr. Jallow’s response to my critique is a desperate attempt to salvage what little remains of his credibility, but in doing so, he has only further revealed the depth of his intellectual dishonesty. 

His failure to engage with the actual substance of my critique, his reliance on personal insults, and his association with predatory journals are all symptoms of a much larger problem: Dr. Jallow is not interested in truth, nor is he interested in contributing to the advancement of knowledge. He is interested only in protecting his fragile ego and maintaining the illusion of intellectual authority.

In conclusion, Dr. Assan Jallow’s response is not the work of a serious scholar; it is the frantic flailing of an academic fraud who has been exposed. His failure to provide evidence, his reliance on personal attacks, and his association with disreputable journals all serve to underscore the fact that he is not a credible voice in the academic community. Dr. Jallow may continue to posture and preen, but his intellectual fraud has been laid bare for all to see. Please watch out for parts 2 and 3 in subsequent editions.

Reporting by Arfang Madi Sillah, Washington DC

Disclaimer: 

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institutions or organizations. The author takes full responsibility for the opinions and analysis presented herein. The author holds several academic degrees, including an advanced degree in International Relations from the Helms School of Government at Liberty University, Virginia, United States of America.