A fertility case that began with an alleged ₦19 million fraud has now opened a far bigger legal question: who protects a patient’s most intimate medical information — and who controls the embryos created in the pursuit of a child?
The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, has taken over the prosecution of an Abuja fertility doctor accused of obtaining ₦19 million from a couple in an alleged IVF fraud, unlawfully dealing with their embryos and disclosing confidential medical information without their consent.
The development has moved the case beyond a dispute over money and medical treatment, putting patient confidentiality, reproductive rights, informed consent and the handling of embryos under the scrutiny of the Federal Government and the courts.
The doctor, John Abebe, is being prosecuted alongside Joje Abebe Fertility Centre Limited and Balkis Olanike Bakare in a fresh three-count charge marked CR/005/2026 filed at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The case was previously being prosecuted by the Nigeria Police Force before the Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation applied to take over the proceedings.
The defendants have pleaded not guilty and remain presumed innocent unless and until the allegations are proved in court.
According to the fresh charge, the Federal Government alleges that Abebe unlawfully disclosed confidential medical records belonging to Mrs Mary Manga without her consent, in breach of the confidentiality protections contained in the National Health Act, 2014.
The prosecution further alleges that information relating to the reproductive health of her husband, Adamu Hassan, was attached to a pre-action demand notice issued through lawyers, thereby exposing private medical information to third parties.
For the couple, the alleged disclosure goes well beyond the ordinary breach of a person’s privacy. Fertility records can reveal reproductive history, infertility, treatment procedures, medical diagnoses and other information that many patients would never willingly disclose outside the doctor-patient relationship.
Nigerian law recognises the sensitivity of such information. Section 26 of the National Health Act provides that information concerning a healthcare user, including information relating to the person’s health status, treatment or stay in a health establishment, is confidential. Disclosure is permitted only in circumstances recognised by law, including written consent from the patient, a court order or where another law requires disclosure.
The legal protection is reinforced by Nigeria’s wider privacy framework. The Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 has strengthened the obligations surrounding the collection, use, storage and disclosure of personal information, with health information falling within the category of data requiring particularly careful handling.
The case therefore raises a question that reaches beyond one doctor’s alleged conduct: how secure is the information Nigerians surrender when they walk into a hospital, fertility centre or laboratory seeking medical help?
When the treatment involves an embryo
The allegations concerning the embryos take the case into an even more complicated area of Nigerian medical law.
The Federal Government alleges that between January and May 2025, Abebe fraudulently obtained ₦19 million from the couple by allegedly representing himself as an IVF specialist, converted the money to his personal use and unlawfully dealt with embryos created during the IVF process.
The prosecution further alleges that nine embryos — two male and seven female — were sold to other patients.
Those allegations, if established, could raise difficult questions about consent and control over embryos created during assisted reproduction. Who may authorise the storage, transfer or use of an embryo? What records should a fertility clinic maintain to establish the identity and status of every embryo? What happens when a couple withdraws consent? What safeguards prevent an embryo created for one couple from being transferred to another?
These questions become particularly important in a country where assisted reproductive technology has expanded rapidly but where the legal and regulatory framework surrounding fertility treatment, embryo storage, transfer and disposal remains an area requiring greater public scrutiny and professional oversight.
For patients, the relationship with a fertility specialist is built on an unusual degree of trust. The doctor may know the couple’s reproductive history, their medical conditions, the results of laboratory tests and the details of procedures that are deeply personal to them. The clinic may also control the laboratory environment in which eggs, sperm and embryos are handled.
That concentration of knowledge and control makes proper consent procedures, accurate records, laboratory traceability and independent oversight essential.
The price of a confidentiality breach
Medical confidentiality is not simply a matter of professional courtesy. It protects the patient’s dignity and helps preserve the trust on which medical treatment depends.
A person seeking treatment for infertility may already be dealing with emotional distress, financial pressure and social expectations surrounding childbearing. Unauthorised disclosure can expose the patient to embarrassment, stigma, family conflict or discrimination, particularly in a society where infertility can still attract considerable social pressure.
The alleged disclosure of the Manga couple’s records therefore raises a broader issue for Nigerian healthcare providers: A medical record is not merely a document belonging to a hospital. It contains information entrusted to the health system by a person who has a legal interest in keeping that information private.
The National Health Act also contains provisions dealing with access to and protection of health records, placing obligations on healthcare establishments to protect information in their custody.
The arrival of electronic records and digital communication has made the responsibility even greater. Medical information can now be copied, transmitted, attached to correspondence and circulated far beyond the physical walls of a hospital within minutes. A confidentiality breach that once might have remained within a small circle can now reach hundreds or thousands of people almost instantly.
For fertility clinics, the risks are greater still because the information involved can concern not only an individual patient’s health but also the reproductive status of a couple and the biological material created during treatment.
Why the federal takeover matters
The decision by the AGF to take over the prosecution gives the case additional significance.
The Office of the Attorney-General of the Federation has now replaced the earlier police-led prosecution with a fresh federal charge, bringing the allegations concerning the money, the medical records and the embryos into one prosecution.
The move also signals that the Federal Government regards the allegations as sufficiently serious to warrant direct prosecutorial attention.
But a criminal trial can determine the guilt or innocence of the defendants; it cannot by itself resolve all the regulatory questions exposed by the case.
Nigeria needs clear and enforceable rules governing fertility centres, including the documentation of informed consent, ownership and control of reproductive material, embryo storage and transfer, access to fertility records, disclosure to lawyers or third parties, laboratory accountability and independent inspection.
Patients should not have to discover the limits of those protections only after something goes wrong.
For now, the court will determine whether the allegations against Abebe and the other defendants are proved. The defendants have pleaded not guilty, and nothing alleged in the charge should be treated as an established fact.
But whatever the eventual verdict, the case has already placed an important question before Nigeria’s health and justice systems: When people surrender their most intimate medical information and the possibility of having a child to a healthcare provider, what safeguards exist to ensure that neither is misused?
