SEX FOR MARKS IN NIGERIAN UNIVERSITIES: THE ABUSE OF ACADEMIC POWER, SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF STUDENTS AND NEED FOR NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL REFORM

By Dr Ibrahim Aminu Trader// A comprehensive analysis, assessment, social commentary, institutional accountability framework, and recommendations to the Federal Government, National Universities Commission (NUC), National Assembly, University Governing Councils, Parents’ Associations, and Nigerian society.

1. INTRODUCTION: WHEN UNIVERSITIES BECOME PLACES OF FEAR INSTEAD OF LEARNING.

The Nigerian university system was established to promote intellectual development, professional competence, scientific discovery, moral responsibility, and national development. Universities are expected to produce graduates who possess the knowledge, character, and skills necessary to contribute meaningfully to society.

However, one of the most disturbing challenges confronting higher education in Nigeria is the abuse of academic authority by lecturers and other university personnel who allegedly demand sexual relationships, sexual favours, money, or other improper benefits from students in exchange for marks, examination success, academic supervision, or graduation.

This phenomenon, commonly described as “sex for marks” or “sex for grades,” represents much more than ordinary misconduct. Where coercion or exploitation is established, it constitutes an abuse of institutional power, a violation of student dignity, a threat to educational integrity, and potentially a criminal offence.

Some students face threats of deliberate failure, withheld results, repeated courses, delayed project approval, or prolonged graduation if they refuse inappropriate demands. Others may encounter pressure to participate in financial exploitation, academic dishonesty, or other unethical activities.

It is essential to distinguish between lecturers who commit such abuses and the many Nigerian academics who teach, supervise, and assess students professionally. The problem must be confronted without unfairly portraying the entire teaching profession as corrupt.

Nevertheless, the existence of abusive conduct within an institution entrusted with educating young people raises a fundamental national question:

How can Nigeria build a knowledgeable, productive, and morally responsible generation when some of the individuals entrusted with educating students exploit their academic vulnerability?

This issue demands coordinated action from government, regulators, universities, parents, students, law enforcement, and the National Assembly.

2. UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF SEXUAL EXPLOITATION IN UNIVERSITIES

The expression “sex for marks” describes situations in which a lecturer or another person exercising academic authority uses that position to seek sexual access or favours from a student.

The misconduct can take several forms.

A. SEXUAL DEMANDS IN EXCHANGE FOR ACADEMIC SUCCESS.

A lecturer may allegedly demand sexual favours in exchange for passing a course, awarding higher marks, approving a research project, or providing favourable academic recommendations.

This is an abuse of the unequal relationship between lecturer and student. Academic evaluation must be based exclusively on merit.

B. THREATS OF ACADEMIC FAILURE

A particularly serious form of exploitation occurs when students are threatened with failure or academic delays unless they submit to inappropriate demands.

Such threats can create intense psychological pressure, especially for students approaching graduation or those whose families have made substantial financial sacrifices.

C. ABUSE OF PROJECT SUPERVISION

Final-year students and postgraduate researchers can be particularly vulnerable because a supervisor may influence project approval, research progress, recommendations, and graduation timelines.

Where one individual exercises excessive control without independent review, opportunities for coercion increase.

D. SEXUAL HARASSMENT DISGUISED AS MENTORSHIP

Some inappropriate relationships begin with offers of special academic assistance, private meetings, financial support, or promises of professional opportunities.

The decisive question is whether the lecturer is exploiting academic authority, creating an intimidating environment, or making academic benefits conditional on sexual cooperation.

E. OTHER FORMS OF COERCION AND MISCONDUCT.

The problem can extend beyond sexual demands to include:

* Extortion and demands for unauthorised payments.

* Pressure to purchase unnecessary materials or services.

* Manipulation of examination results.

* Threats against students who report misconduct.

* Forced participation in academic fraud.

* Misuse of confidential student information.

* Intimidation, humiliation, and discriminatory treatment.

These behaviours require different investigative and legal responses, but they share a common institutional concern: the misuse of power over students.

3. WHY THE PROBLEM PERSISTS.

The persistence of sexual harassment and academic coercion cannot be explained solely by individual moral failure. Institutional weaknesses may enable misconduct to continue.

FIRST, excessive concentration of academic power can make students dependent on a single lecturer for assessment, supervision, or graduation.

SECOND, fear of retaliation discourages reporting. Students may believe that complaining will lead to further victimisation, reputational damage, or academic exclusion.

THIRD, weak complaints procedures may leave victims uncertain about whom to contact, whether their identity will remain protected, or whether allegations will be investigated fairly.

FOURTH, institutional reputational concerns can sometimes create pressure to handle serious allegations quietly rather than transparently.

FIFTH, economic vulnerability can intensify exploitation. Students whose families cannot afford additional semesters, accommodation, or tuition may feel particularly exposed to threats of delayed graduation.

SIXTH, social stigma and victim-blaming may discourage survivors from disclosing harassment, especially when they fear being accused of willingly participating.

The response must therefore address both individual misconduct and the systems that make misconduct easier to commit and harder to expose.

4. DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE: SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS NOT MERELY A RUMOUR.

The issue has been exposed through investigative journalism, university disciplinary proceedings, research, and official policy discussions.

The BBC Africa Eye Investigation of 2019.

In October 2019, BBC Africa Eye released its Sex for Grades investigation, documenting sexual harassment involving academics in Nigeria and Ghana.

The investigation included undercover reporting at the University of Lagos and the University of Ghana and brought international attention to abuses of academic authority. YouTube +1

The University of Lagos Disciplinary Action.

Following the investigation, the University of Lagos conducted disciplinary proceedings.

On 31 May 2021, its Governing Council approved the dismissal of Dr Boniface Igbeneghu and Dr Samuel Omoniyi Oladipo following findings of misconduct.

The Council also directed the university administration to review its sexual harassment policy and strengthen preventive measures. Punch Newspapers +1

This case demonstrates that universities possess mechanisms to investigate and sanction misconduct, but the effectiveness of those mechanisms depends on their independence and consistent application.

Evidence of Wider Institutional Concern.

A July 2024 publication of the National Universities Commission discussed research findings on sexual harassment in tertiary institutions, including concerns about underreporting, retaliation, and inadequate institutional responses.

The reported prevalence figures were drawn from studies discussed at an event; they should not automatically be treated as a representative national estimate for every Nigerian university. National Universities Commission

The important conclusion is that sexual harassment requires systematic measurement, transparent reporting, and institutional action rather than reliance on isolated scandals.

5. PSYCHOLOGICAL, EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES.

A. Psychological Damage To Students.

Sexual coercion can produce anxiety, fear, depression, shame, distrust, and lasting emotional distress.

A student who enters university expecting education and professional development may instead experience repeated threats from someone responsible for determining academic success.

Possible consequences include loss of confidence, withdrawal from social relationships, declining academic performance, and abandonment of educational ambitions.

Universities must provide confidential psychological support without requiring students to prove misconduct before receiving care.

B. Destruction of Academic Merit.

When academic marks are exchanged for sexual favours or other improper benefits, the integrity of the grading system is compromised.

Students who genuinely deserve high marks may be disadvantaged, while academic results cease to reflect knowledge and competence reliably.

This creates wider concerns for employers, professional bodies, and society.

A university degree should certify learning and achievement, not a student’s willingness to satisfy the personal demands of someone in authority.

C. Increased University Dropout and Delayed Graduation.

Students who experience harassment may avoid classes, change departments, repeat courses, or withdraw from university.

These disruptions impose additional financial burdens on families and can delay entry into employment.

D. Damage to Family Relationships.

Parents often make enormous sacrifices to finance university education.

When students face sexual exploitation, families may experience distress, anger, mistrust, and financial hardship.

Some students may conceal their experiences because they fear blame or disappointment from their parents.

A protective family environment must therefore encourage disclosure without humiliation or punishment.

E. Consequences for National Development.

Nigeria requires competent doctors, engineers, teachers, lawyers, scientists, administrators, and entrepreneurs.

When academic integrity is undermined, the consequences extend beyond individual students.

Sexual exploitation and academic corruption can weaken confidence in qualifications, reduce human-capital development, damage institutional reputations, and discourage educational participation.

The precise national economic cost has not been established here, but the mechanisms through which such misconduct can damage productivity and educational investment are substantial.

6. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PARENTS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF UNIVERSITY PARENTS’ ASSOCIATIONS.

One of the most important proposals is the establishment of structured, independent Parents’ Associations in Nigerian universities.

Unlike primary and secondary schools, universities educate predominantly adults who possess their own rights to privacy, autonomy, and confidential complaint procedures. Parents’ involvement must therefore support students rather than control their personal lives.

A University Parents’ Association should function as a recognised stakeholder organisation, not as a body that interferes with university examinations, academic appointments, or disciplinary judgments.

Proposed Responsibilities.

1. Student Protection Advocacy:

Press universities to maintain credible systems for reporting harassment, intimidation, and extortion.

2. Independent Complaints Support:

Help students obtain legal advice, counselling, and access to appropriate reporting institutions.

3. University Accountability Meetings:

Hold regular meetings with university management to review anonymised student-safety data.

4. Parental Education:

Inform parents about warning signs of exploitation and ways to support students without victim-blaming.

5. Financial Support:

Establish voluntary welfare funds for students facing hardship arising from retaliation, forced withdrawal, or academic delays.

6. National Representation:

Create a federation of university parents’ associations to engage with the NUC, National Assembly, and Federal Ministry of Education.

7. Protection of confidentiality:

Require student consent before accessing individual complaints or sensitive personal information, except where lawful safeguarding duties apply.

RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE.

National Federation of University Parents’ Associations

Advocacy, policy engagement and national accountability

State Chapters.

Regional coordination and oversight

University Chapters.

Institutional Engagement and Advocacy

Independent Student Protection and Referral Committees

Confidential support, legal referrals, counselling and welfare assistance

This structure should operate through formal university agreements and must not replace student unions, independent investigators, law enforcement, or established university disciplinary bodies.

7. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST TREAT STUDENT PROTECTION AS A NATIONAL EDUCATION PRIORITY.

The Federal Government, through the Federal Ministry of Education and other relevant agencies, should establish a coordinated programme to address sexual harassment and academic coercion.

Proposed National University Student Protection Programme.

The Programme Should Include:

* A minimum national anti-harassment policy for all universities.

* Dedicated funding for confidential reporting and survivor support.

* Mandatory safeguarding training for academic and non-academic employees.

* National collection of anonymised misconduct statistics.

* Independent compliance inspections.

* Legal and psychological assistance for students.

* Clear procedures for referring suspected criminal offences to law enforcement.

Federal and state authorities should coordinate while respecting the different legal responsibilities of federal, state, and private universities.

Government should also provide sufficient funding for counselling and student welfare services. A university cannot reasonably promise protection without allocating resources to deliver it.

8. THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION MUST STRENGTHEN REGULATORY OVERSIGHT.

The National Universities Commission should make student safeguarding and academic integrity central components of university quality assurance.

Nigeria already has relevant policy resources. For example, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) has developed model anti-sexual-harassment policies for educational institutions, including tertiary institutions. These provide a practical foundation for stronger institutional standards. icpc.gov.ng

RECOMMENDED NUC REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS.

The Responsibility of Parents and the Establishment of University Parents’ Associations

Recommended NUC regulatory requirements:

PROPOSED MEASURE
Mandatory anti-harassment policies

PURPOSE
Establish clear rules and prohibited conduct

PROPOSED MEASURE
Independent reporting channels

PURPOSE
Reduce fear of retaliation

PROPOSED MEASURE
Annual safeguarding audits

PURPOSE
Assess institutional compliance

PROPOSED MEASURE
External review of serious complaints

PURPOSE
Reduce conflicts of interest

PROPOSED MEASURE
Anonymous student experience surveys

PURPOSE
Identify hidden institutional risks

PROPOSED MEASURE
Grade review and moderation

PURPOSE
Detect potential academic retaliation

PROPOSED MEASURE
Public institutional compliance reports

PURPOSE
Strengthen accountability.

The NUC should require universities to publish policies and aggregate compliance information while protecting complainants’ identities.

It should also integrate safeguarding standards into relevant accreditation and quality-assurance processes, subject to its statutory authority.

Where institutions fail to meet minimum requirements, regulators should impose lawful corrective measures and monitor compliance rather than merely issue warnings.

9. THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY: LEGISLATIVE ACTION AND OVERSIGHT.

The National Assembly has an important responsibility to establish a clear legal framework for preventing sexual harassment in tertiary institutions.

On 5 November 2025, the Senate reportedly passed the Sexual Harassment of Students (Prevention and Prohibition) Bill, 2025, following action in the House of Representatives. Reports described penalties of up to 14 years’ imprisonment for certain offences under the proposed legislation. TheCable

Important legal distinction: Passage by the National Assembly does not, by itself, establish that a bill has received presidential assent and commenced as an enforceable Act. The latest assent and commencement status should be verified from official legislative and gazette records before relying on its proposed penalties as current law.

Legislative Priorities.

The National Assembly should:

* Confirm the status of the sexual harassment legislation and address any outstanding steps required for enactment or implementation.

* Ensure that the law covers academic and non-academic personnel exercising authority over students.

* Provide strong protection against retaliation and intimidation.

* Establish clear reporting, investigation, and prosecution procedures.

* Protect complainants’ privacy and the due-process rights of accused persons.

* Provide appropriate remedies for students whose academic progress has been damaged.

* Conduct periodic oversight hearings on university safeguarding compliance.

* Require government agencies to report on implementation and measurable outcomes.

The legislation should distinguish between sexual harassment, coercion, sexual assault, and other forms of misconduct so that penalties are proportionate and legally enforceable.

The National Assembly should also examine the relationship between federal legislation, state criminal laws, the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act where applicable, and university disciplinary procedures.

Administrative dismissal should not automatically substitute for criminal investigation where the evidence indicates a possible criminal offence.

10. UNIVERSITY GOVERNING COUNCILS AND BOARD MEMBERS MUST BE ACCOUNTABLE.

University Governing Councils are responsible for important aspects of institutional governance, including oversight of management and staff discipline under applicable university laws.

Their responsibility must extend beyond infrastructure, budgets, appointments, and ceremonial activities.

Mandatory Governance Reforms.

A. Establish independent safeguarding committees. These should include appropriately qualified legal, psychological, academic, and student-protection representatives. Members with conflicts of interest must be excluded from individual investigations.

B. Create an independent reporting office. Students should be able to complain without first reporting to the lecturer, supervisor, or department implicated.

C. Introduce transparent examination safeguards. Assessment records, marking rubrics, and authorised grade changes should be documented and subject to review.

D. Protect students during investigations. Where necessary, universities should provide alternative supervision, independent assessment, or reasonable adjustments without penalising complainants.

E. Enforce disciplinary sanctions. Proven misconduct should result in proportionate disciplinary action, potentially including dismissal, subject to institutional rules and due process.

F. Report serious offences. Allegations involving possible sexual assault, threats, or other criminal conduct should be referred to appropriate authorities in accordance with applicable law.

G. Prevent institutional cover-ups. University management must not use confidentiality as a pretext for suppressing complaints. Privacy protection and institutional accountability can coexist.

The governing principle should be simple:

No lecturer, professor, head of department, dean, vice-chancellor, or university official should be above lawful investigation.

11. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ASUU AND OTHER UNIVERSITY STAFF UNIONS.

The Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) and other staff unions have important roles in defending professional standards.

Protecting lecturers’ employment rights should not mean protecting proven misconduct.

ASUU should strengthen its professional ethics framework, educate members about abuse of academic authority, cooperate with lawful investigations, and defend fair procedures for both complainants and accused lecturers.

Unions should also advocate better working conditions, transparent academic evaluation systems, and adequate university funding. These reforms support professionalism, although poor working conditions can never justify sexual exploitation.

12. PROTECTING STUDENTS AGAINST THREATS AND RETALIATION.

One of the most important reforms is ensuring that students can report misconduct without sacrificing their education.

Universities should adopt a formal anti-retaliation protocol.

Proposed Confidential Student Complaint Process.

* Confidential report

Student contacts an independent safeguarding office, secure portal, or designated external reporting channel.

* Immediate safety assessment

The institution evaluates threats, academic risks, medical needs, and whether urgent protective measures are required.

* Independent investigation

Trained investigators collect relevant evidence, hear both sides, and prevent conflicts of interest.

* Academic protection

Alternative assessment or supervision is arranged where justified, and suspicious grade changes are independently reviewed.

* Decision and referral

Disciplinary findings are issued under applicable rules, with referral to police or other authorities where warranted.

* Appeal and follow-up

Parties receive appropriate appeal rights, while the institution monitors retaliation and provides continuing support.

Students should be encouraged to preserve relevant messages, emails, grade records, and other lawful evidence. They should not be required to confront an alleged offender, conduct dangerous undercover investigations, or publicise their identities to obtain help.

Confidentiality is particularly important for students who fear reputational damage or family pressure.

13. A NATIONAL REFORM PROGRAMME: 2027–2030.

I propose a four-year Nigerian University Student Dignity and Academic Integrity Initiative.

The following timetable is a recommended programme, not an existing government commitment.

PERIOD
First 90 days

PRIORITY ACTION
National safeguarding directive and review of existing policies

RESPONSIBLE INSTITUTIONS
Ministry of Education, NUC

PERIOD
First 6 months

PRIORITY ACTION
Independent reporting channels and student protection units

RESPONSIBLE INSTITUTIONS
University Councils

PERIOD
First 12 months

PRIORITY ACTION
Nationwide institutional compliance audit and baseline student survey

RESPONSIBLE INSTITUTIONS
NUC, Universities

PERIOD
2027–2028

PRIORITY ACTION
Establish voluntary university parents’ associations and independent support networks

RESPONSIBLE INSTITUTIONS
Parents, students, Universities

PERIOD
2028–2029

PRIORITY ACTION
Integrate safeguarding standards into quality assurance and professional development

RESPONSIBLE INSTITUTIONS
NUC, professional bodies

PERIOD
2029–2030

PRIORITY ACTION
Independent evaluation of reporting, investigations, sanctions, and student outcomes

RESPONSIBLE INSTITUTIONS
Government, National Assembly, independent evaluators

Performance Indicators.

The programme should measure its results using:

* Percentage of universities with operational independent reporting systems.

* Percentage of staff completing safeguarding training.

* Time taken to acknowledge and investigate complaints.

* Percentage of complainants receiving appropriate protective measures.

* Number of substantiated cases and disciplinary outcomes, reported without identifying individuals.

* Student confidence in reporting mechanisms.

* Evidence of retaliation, repeat misconduct, and institutional noncompliance.

An increase in reported cases during the early stages should not automatically be interpreted as an increase in misconduct. It may indicate that students have developed greater confidence in the reporting system.

The longer-term goal is to reduce actual abuse while increasing trust in institutional accountability.

14. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS.

A credible national protection programme requires funding, but its cost should be weighed against the educational, social, and economic consequences of allowing exploitation to continue.

The Federal Government, state governments, university administrations, and development partners could support implementation through dedicated allocations.

Funding should prioritise independent complaint offices, professional investigators, counselling services, secure information systems, legal assistance, and staff training.

A proposed financing arrangement could include contributions from institutional budgets, targeted government safeguarding grants, and voluntary support from alumni and philanthropic organisations.

No compulsory levy should be imposed on students or parents without lawful authority, consultation, and transparent financial justification.

Every participating institution should publish an annual audited account of safeguarding expenditure.

15. THE MORAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION.

Nigeria’s constitutional framework recognises fundamental rights that are relevant to protecting students from abuse.

Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, protects the dignity of the human person. Section 42 addresses freedom from specified forms of discrimination. Other constitutional protections may become relevant depending on the facts.

Sexual exploitation, intimidation, and retaliation can also engage criminal, employment, and civil law.

From a moral perspective, education creates a special relationship of trust. Lecturers exercise authority because society expects them to use their knowledge and professional judgment to develop students.

That authority must never become a means of obtaining sexual favours or other improper benefits.

Religious and community leaders can reinforce these principles by condemning exploitation, rejecting victim-blaming, and encouraging lawful accountability.

The responsibility is universal: female and male students must be protected, and all allegations must receive fair investigation regardless of the gender, seniority, or social influence of the people involved.

16. RECOMMENDATIONS TO ALL STAKEHOLDERS.

STAKEHOLDER
Federal Government

IMMEDIATE RESPONSIBILITY
Establish and fund national safeguarding standards

STAKEHOLDER
National Assembly

IMMEDIATE RESPONSIBILITY
Complete and oversee an effective legislative framework

STAKEHOLDER
NUC

IMMEDIATE RESPONSIBILITY
Monitor compliance and integrate safeguarding into quality assurance

STAKEHOLDER
University Governing Councils

IMMEDIATE RESPONSIBILITY
Establish independent investigations and enforce discipline

STAKEHOLDER
Vice-Chancellors

IMMEDIATE RESPONSIBILITY
Guarantee confidential reporting and academic protection

STAKEHOLDER
Parents’ Associations

IMMEDIATE RESPONSIBILITY
Provide advocacy, welfare assistance, and external accountability

STAKEHOLDER
ASUU and other Unions

IMMEDIATE RESPONSIBILITY
Promote professional ethics and cooperate with due process

STAKEHOLDER
Student unions

IMMEDIATE RESPONSIBILITY
Educate students about their rights and safe reporting

STAKEHOLDER
Police and relevant agencies

IMMEDIATE RESPONSIBILITY
Investigate suspected criminal offences professionally

STAKEHOLDER
Civil society and media

IMMEDIATE RESPONSIBILITY
Support survivors and report verified findings responsibly.

17. A CALL FOR A NATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING.

The National Assembly should consider convening a public hearing titled:

“Sexual Exploitation, Academic Coercion and the Protection of Students in Nigerian Tertiary Institutions.”

The hearing should invite representatives of the NUC, Federal Ministry of Education, university Governing Councils, ASUU, student unions, parents, ICPC, law enforcement, civil society organisations, and independent safeguarding specialists.

Survivors should have the opportunity to provide evidence through confidential channels, without being compelled to recount traumatic experiences publicly.

The hearing should produce an implementation report identifying legislative gaps, institutional weaknesses, funding needs, and measurable responsibilities.

It should also examine whether existing university complaint procedures provide sufficient independence when allegations concern senior academics or management officials.

18. CONCLUSION: NIGERIAN UNIVERSITIES MUST BE CENTRES OF KNOWLEDGE, NOT EXPLOITATION.

The struggle against sexual harassment and academic coercion in Nigerian universities is fundamentally a struggle for educational justice, institutional integrity, and human dignity.

A university cannot claim academic excellence if students are afraid of the people responsible for assessing them.

A degree cannot command public confidence when marks can be manipulated through intimidation, sexual demands, financial extortion, or personal favouritism.

A country cannot fully develop its human resources when students abandon education or suffer lasting harm because of abuses committed by individuals entrusted with teaching them.

The responsibility must not be placed on students alone. Parents must be involved, university authorities must be accountable, regulators must enforce standards, and lawmakers must provide effective legal protections.

At the same time, justice requires evidence-based investigations, confidentiality, proportional sanctions, and protection against malicious or unfounded allegations. These safeguards strengthen rather than weaken the fight against genuine misconduct.

The time has come for Nigeria to establish a national culture in which no student is forced to choose between personal dignity and academic success.

A lecturer’s responsibility is to teach, guide, examine, and develop students—not to exploit their vulnerability.

A university’s responsibility is to protect learning, uphold merit, and guarantee a safe educational environment.

And government’s responsibility is to ensure that these obligations are fulfilled through enforceable laws, effective regulation, and transparent institutional accountability.

FINAL NATIONAL APPEAL.

I call upon the Federal Government of Nigeria, the National Assembly, the National Universities Commission, university Governing Councils, the Academic Staff Union of Universities, parents, and student representatives to support a comprehensive national framework against sexual exploitation and academic coercion.

No student should exchange their body for marks. No lecturer should use academic authority to threaten a student’s future. No university should conceal proven misconduct to protect its reputation.

The future of Nigerian education depends not only on the quality of its classrooms, laboratories, and libraries, but also on the character, integrity, and accountability of those entrusted with teaching the next generation.

About Author