DOCTORS INDICTED OVER CHIMAMANDA ADICHIE’S SON’S DEATH ALLEGE BIAS, LACK OF FAIR HEARING

Read Time:3 Minute, 38 Second

By Aishat Momoh. O.

Three doctors indicted by the Medical and Dental Practitioners Investigation Panel over the death of the son of Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie have faulted the investigative process, alleging bias, lack of fair hearing and misapplication of the Code of Medical Ethics of Nigeria.

The doctors, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of victimisation, told journalists that the panel had a preconceived plan to sanction them unjustly. They demanded that the indictment be set aside and that a public apology be issued, describing the decision as damaging to their professional reputations.

The panel, constituted by the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria, had earlier announced the suspension of the Medical Director of Euracare Multi-Specialist Hospital, Dr Tunde Majekodunmi; the hospital’s anaesthesiologist, Dr Titus Ogundare; and the Chief Medical Officer at Atlantis Pediatric Hospital, Dr Atinuke Uwajeh, over findings of alleged medical negligence in the treatment of 21-month-old Nkanu Adichie‑Esege.

According to the panel, the three doctors would remain barred from practising medicine in Nigeria pending the determination of their cases by the Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal.

The panel also said it found a prima facie case of professional misconduct against 10 other doctors who had contact with the patient, while eight doctors were cleared of wrongdoing. The decision followed a review of complaints against 21 doctors, counter-affidavits, and sworn oral depositions during the panel’s 25th session in Abuja on February 17 and 18, 2026.

The death of Nkanu, one of the twin sons of Adichie and her husband, Ivara Esege, occurred on January 7, 2026, after a brief illness.

Recounting the incident earlier, Adichie alleged medical negligence. She said her son was taken to Euracare Hospital in Lagos for an MRI scan and insertion of a central line after what initially appeared to be a common cold developed into a severe infection.

During the procedure, the child was sedated with propofol but was allegedly not properly monitored afterwards, leading to complications including loss of responsiveness, seizures and cardiac arrest.

However, one of the indicted doctors argued that the panel wrongly applied provisions of the Code of Medical Ethics in reaching its decision, particularly Rule 49(c), which governs private practice by consultants fully employed in public service.

The doctor said the rule was misinterpreted in his case, explaining that the patient was not his private patient and that he had only been invited to provide expert opinion.

“They said I violated Rule 49(c), which was a wrong application of the rule. The rule allows medical practitioners to use their professional skills during their free time, provided it does not clash with official duties,” he said.

He added that the consultation occurred on a Saturday when he was not on duty and insisted that another physician was the primary doctor managing the patient.

The doctors also alleged that the investigative process denied them the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. According to them, the complainant was absent during the panel hearing, while her legal counsel was allowed to cross-examine the respondents.

“The cross-examination was one-sided,” one doctor said.

Another concern raised was that the panel made its findings public before formally notifying the affected doctors. One of them claimed the public announcement was issued on March 3, while their letters were received on March 5 despite being dated February 25.

Some of the doctors also described the panel’s questioning as aggressive and said respondents were treated as though they were already guilty before the investigation concluded.

One of the doctors further questioned the basis for indicting multiple practitioners involved in managing a single patient, warning that such findings could damage public confidence in Nigeria’s healthcare system.

“If 10 doctors are all accused of misconduct in managing a single patient, what message does that send about our hospitals?” he asked.

Another doctor alleged bias in the panel’s conclusions, claiming that the physician who performed the lumbar puncture procedure that allegedly triggered complications was not among those indicted.

The doctors insisted the panel’s decision should be reversed, arguing that it had caused irreparable damage to their careers and the medical profession.

When contacted for comment, the secretary of the panel, Enejo Abdu, declined to speak, stating that he was not authorised to address the media.