Court Rules On Bid To Halt Chimamanda Adichie’s Son Inquest October 12

Justice Aishat Opesanwo of the Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikoyi will on October 12 decide whether or not to halt the coroner’s inquest into the circumstances surrounding the death of Nkanu, son of celebrated Nigerian author, Chimamanda Adichie.

Justice Opesanwo fixed the date for ruling after hearing arguments for and against the application filed by Eurapharma Care Services Nigeria Limited, operators of Euracare Multi-Specialist Hospital, where Nkanu allegedly died during medical procedures on 7th January, 2026.

Eurapharma Care is seeking, among other reliefs, an order of certiorari to quash decisions made in relation to the inquest and a prohibition restraining the Coroner, Magistrate Atinuke Adetunji, from proceeding with the investigation.

The hospital, through its counsel, Prof. Taiwo Osipitan (SAN), raised questions bordering on fair hearing, the order in which witnesses were to testify and the jurisdiction of the Coroner following the cremation of the deceased’s body.

Osipitan argued that the hospital and its personnel, against whom allegations of medical negligence had been made, were being required to open their case before those who made the allegations had presented theirs.

He contended that although a coroner’s inquest was inquisitorial in form, it was “accusatorial in substance” in the circumstances of the case because the deceased’s family had alleged that his death resulted from acts or omissions amounting to medical incompetence.

The senior lawyer also argued that the proposed order of calling witnesses created a likelihood of breaching the applicant’s right to a fair hearing.

Another major issue raised by the hospital was whether the Coroner retained jurisdiction to determine the cause of death after the deceased’s body had been cremated.

Osipitan relied on Sections 14 and 15 of the Lagos State Coroners System Law, arguing that the Coroner’s jurisdiction was linked to the presence of the deceased’s body within the relevant coroner district.

According to him, determining who died, where the person died, how the person died, and the cause of death ordinarily required a post-mortem examination.

He argued that because the body had been cremated, a post-mortem examination could no longer be conducted and the cause of death could not be established without speculation.

He consequently urged the court to grant the orders of certiorari and prohibition sought by the hospital.

However, the Lagos State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Lawal Pedro (SAN), urged the court to dismiss the application, arguing that the Coroner had statutory discretion to proceed with an inquest even where the body of the deceased had been destroyed or was unrecoverable.

Pedro relied on Section 21 of the Lagos State Coroners System Law, submitting that the provision empowered the Coroner to conduct an inquest notwithstanding the destruction or unavailability of the body.

He also argued that the application for judicial review was premature because, at the time it was filed, the Coroner had not taken any evidence or testimony.

The Attorney-General maintained that the Coroner had neither asserted nor exceeded jurisdiction in a manner warranting judicial review.

He urged the court to allow the Coroner to exercise the discretion granted by law on whether to proceed with the inquest.

Counsel to the deceased’s family, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), also urged the court to dismiss the hospital’s application, describing it as premature.

Pinheiro argued that certiorari and prohibition could not be used to compel the High Court to assume jurisdiction over a special proceeding which the law had assigned to the Coroner.

Pinheiro also challenged the hospital’s argument that the cremation of the body deprived the Coroner of jurisdiction.

He relied on Sections 21 and 31(1) of the Coroners System Law, arguing that the provisions permitted the Coroner to proceed with an inquest even where there was no corpse available for inspection.

The senior lawyer further argued that Section 31 specifically protected a Coroner’s decision not to view or verify the existence of a body from being challenged in court.

Pinheiro described the inquest as a fact-finding proceeding, stressing that it had no defendant or claimant, did not determine criminal guilt and did not constitute a trial.

He said the Coroner’s findings would ultimately be submitted to the executive authorities, including the Attorney-General and Director of Public Prosecutions, for a decision on further action.

The dispute arose from Nkanu’s death on 7 January 2026, at Euracare Multi-Specialist Hospital in Lagos.

The deceased’s parents, Adichie and her husband, Dr Ivara Esege, had alleged that there were prima facie breaches of the duty of care in the treatment of their son.

Euracare has denied the allegations of medical negligence, describing them as inaccurate and unfounded.