By Stephen Azubuike
As condolences are being rendered like cold compress gel to the family of the Late Master Nkanu Nnamdi Adichie-Esege to reduce the inflammation of grief, Onikepo Braithwaite appears to deliver a repressive gel, capable of inflicting more pain to Nkanu’s grieving family. This was as contained in her article published in Thisday Newspaper on Tuesday, 20 January 2026. In the article, Ms. Braithwaite seems to compound the tragedy of Nkanu’s demise by some misstatement of the law and unhelpful assumptions. I write to address these anomalies.
Background Story and Allegation of Medical Negligence
Nkanu had suffered an infection and was taken to Atlantis Pediatric Hospital (Atlantis) in Lagos for treatment. From available reports, Nkanu’s parents were also in consultative contact with Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, US. Following their decision to evacuate their son to the US for specialised treatment, John Hopkins was said to have recommended some preliminary procedure to be carried out in Lagos in preparation for the medical flight. The procedure includes an echocardiogram, brain MRI, a lumbar puncture, and the insertion of a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) line.
Nkanu was transferred from Atlantis to Euracare Multi-Specialist Hospital (Euracare) for the procedure where the 21-month-old child eventually died on 7 January 2026. Following Nkanu’s death, his mum and renowned author, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, accused Euracare of medical negligence. Ms. Adichie said a doctor in Euracare had directly told her that the resident anaesthesiologist had administered an overdose of propofol, a sedative. Nkanu’s family further claimed that after Nkanu was sedated, the child was not properly monitored, and that the anesthesiologist carried Nkanu on his shoulder to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) without proper support or equipment.
Also, it was alleged that during this transfer, Nkanu was not provided with supplemental oxygen, and monitoring equipment was not used, making clinical observation impossible. The tragic climax of these events was that the child reportedly became unresponsive, suffered seizures, and cardiac arrest, which inevitably led to his death. As you will discover in the latter part of this piece, where I will state the true position of the law regarding autopsies, the relevance of the facts recounted above will become even clearer.
Expectedly, Euracare issued a statement denying the allegation of medical negligence, stating that Nkanu was critically ill upon arrival and that the hospital provided care in line with established clinical protocols and international standards. Interestingly, Euracare announced that they have commenced an internal investigation and expressed their willingness and readiness to cooperate with relevant regulatory authorities for full and independent investigation.
Ms. Braithwaite’s Intervention
While investigation is ongoing and possible judicial intervention is being awaited, Ms. Braithwaite expressed a distressing opinion on the topic, which was published. Ms. Braithwaite contended that to determine the cause of Nkanu’s death and whether there was medical negligence, an autopsy must be conducted; otherwise, the cause of death cannot be proved. She concluded that following an investigative journalism report that Nkanu’s body might have already been cremated, the reported cremation was a deliberate act to destroy evidence required to prove the allegation or determine the cause of Nkanu’s death. The Learned Author relied on Section 48(1) of the Coroner’s System Law of Lagos State 2007 (“the Law”) which criminalises the chemical preservation, dismemberment or disposal of a body of a person who died in circumstances that require a Coroner’s Inquest, without the approval of the Coroner.
In advancing the above contentions, Ms. Braithwaite made further statements which are less than accurate and legally unsupportable. I will proceed to address them below.
Coroner’s Inquest can be Conducted in the Absence of the Deceased’s Body
Whilst the Law in Section 48(1) requires the approval of a Coroner before the disposal of the body of a person who died in circumstances that may require an inquest, the Law does not state that a coroner’s inquest cannot be conducted in the absence of the body of the deceased. In fact, it is within the contemplation of the Law that there might be instances where the body of the deceased may be unavailable. Section 21 of the Law provides:
“Where a Coroner has reason to believe that a death has occurred within his District and in such circumstances that an inquest should be held, he may hold an inquest regarding the death if he considers it necessary, notwithstanding the:
(a.) total destruction or partial destruction of the body by fire or any other cause, an inquest cannot be held except by virtue of the provisions of this Section;
(b) fact that the body is lying in a place from which it cannot be recovered.
Provided that the law relating to inquest shall apply with such modifications as may be necessary on or after a medical examination of the body found within the Coroner’s District.”
Interestingly, Ms. Braithwaite failed to specifically capture the above provision in the Law. However, she acknowledged judicial authorities in support of the position that an autopsy is not required in all cases to determine cause of death. The Learned Author opted for illustrations that lean towards the rather narrow conclusion that in the instant case of Nkanu, autopsy is the only way. But she cited no authority to specifically support this argument, even in the face of the express provisions of Section 21.
Therefore, in line with Section 21 of the Law, Ms. Braithwaite’s contention is clearly erroneous. The Coroner’s inquest can still be conducted in the absence of Baby Nkanu’s body. In his rejoinder to Ms. Braithwaite’s article, Learned Counsel, Thaddeus Idenyi had aptly explained that:
“This provision anticipates precisely the situation at hand: where grief, cultural choice, or circumstance results in burial or cremation, the law still insists that inquiry can still proceed. To suggest otherwise and allege crime in the burial of the deceased child is to mislead the public and weaponize grief against mourning parents.”
Relevance of Medical Records
If a coroner’s inquest is ordered, it is the duty of the coroner to embark on the inquiry and consider all available medical records, the precise treatment procedure administered on Nkanu, statements obtained and other available evidence in order to determine the cause of death.
All of these are capable of providing both documentary and circumstantial evidence which the coroner or even the courts may work with in determining the cause of death and the veracity of the allegations levelled by Nkanu’s family against Euracare.
For instance, securing and a careful consideration of the complete medical records and an examination of Ms. Adichie’s claim about the information she received regarding the alleged over-dosing of Nkanu on propofol, would be relevant and could serve as a useful guide. From available medical literature, propofol is regarded as a powerful intravenous sedative-hypnotic drug. Propofol overdose is said to be capable of causing a severe central nervous system and cardiovascular depression, leading to respiratory arrest, profound hypotension (shock), unconsciousness, metabolic acidosis, cardiac arrhythmias (abnormal heart rhythm), and rhabdomyolysis (muscle breakdown), with potentially fatal outcomes. This highlights the need for urgent care and attention.
Thus, it behoves the coroner to make a definite determination whether in spite of all available information and evidence, cause of death cannot be confirmed due to the absence of Nkanu’s body. It is not the duty of Ms. Braithwaite to make this determination based on a misstatement of the law.
By making reference to a section of the Law (section 48 on preservation of body) without considering other vital provisions of the same statute (such as section 21 on conduct of inquest in the absence of the body), Ms. Braithwaite’s contention here was clearly misleading.
Also, autopsy is clearly not the only way to determine propofol overdose. Ms. Braithwaite was in error when she made a sweeping conclusion to the contrary in this regard.
Ms. Braithwaite’s Allegation on Deliberate Destruction of Evidence
Curiously, with Nkanu’s parents having reportedly cremated the body of their child, Ms. Braithwaite accused the grieving parents of deliberately destroying evidence required to prove the allegation of medical negligence, or determine the cause of Nkanu’s death. The implication of this accusation when closely checked is that Ms. Braithwaite appears to suggest that the evidence—Nkanu’s body—needed to help establish the innocence of Euracare was deliberately destroyed. This is the only logical implication of the allegation of deliberate destruction of evidence.
Ms. Braithwaite did not reveal the source of her conviction as it was not clear whether she was relying on the same investigative journalism report through which she learnt of the cremation in the first place. Therefore, without any concrete information on the reason for the cremation, and without considering whether Nkanu’s parents at the time of cremation even thought about any coroner’s inquest, Ms. Braithwaite rapidly concluded that the purpose was to destroy evidence. This, in my opinion, was unfair.
The Issue of Standard of Proof
Ms. Braithwaite stated in her article that “Where a specific cause of death is alleged, the person making that allegation must prove it, beyond reasonable doubt.” The Learned Writer relied on the criminal case of State v. Chukwu (2021) LPELR-56610(SC).
The above is only true where an action on medical negligence is only founded on criminal negligence. An action founded on paediatric medical negligence can still be maintained against Euracare and any erring doctor under the tort of negligence which is a civil claim. Here, it is trite that the standard of proof required is proof based on preponderance of evidence or balance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Nevertheless, it is also not true that in the absence of Nkanu’s body for an autopsy, the prosecution cannot prove a criminal allegation of medical negligence beyond any reasonable doubt. An autopsy report is not the only key to establishing a case beyond reasonable doubt. It is trite that the court can rely on other evidence and surrounding circumstances to determine cause of death in the absence of an autopsy report. The law is that proof beyond reasonable doubt is what is required and not proof beyond any shadow of doubt.
Mr. Idenyi made a fine observation here when he stressed that:
“An inquest into the cause of death suspected to have been caused by medical negligence is not necessarily to establish guilt or for criminal prosecution only, but to unravel the truth regarding the medical care offered and for preventive steps in the future. When properly viewed, the temptation to insist that an inquest must proceed on the basis of a post mortem for some proof beyond reasonable doubt becomes less fanciful.”
Ms. Braithwaite’s Reference to Meningitis and otherPossible Causesof Death
According to Ms. Braithwaite, “Meningitis is an extremely serious condition that can kill a patient within 24 hours. Is it then possible, to completely ignore such a serious condition which may have remained untreated, and blame the death of such a patient, solely on a sedation overdose? This is a question that was begging to be answered.”
It is clear that Ms. Braithwaite did not appear to have factored in the serious consequences of propofol overdose. Her tone of reference to “sedation overdose” sounds as if we are talking about an overdose of some baby milk. Although propofol has been referred to as a “milk of amnesia” due to its milky white appearance, propofol remains a powerful substance whose overdose can lead to fatal consequences. It should never be heard that an anaesthesiologist administered an overdose of propofol, and without proper monitoring.
We must bear in mind the claim that Baby Nkanu was said to have been taken to Euracare in a stable condition for the prescribed procedures to be performed.
To carry out the procedures, he was sedated with propofol and that appeared to have marked the beginning of the troubles which led to his demise. Everything he was said to have suffered aligns with the established consequences of possible propofol overdose and not meningitis per se. Therefore, it is still necessary to conduct an enquiry through the records and to consider all claims relating to how the toddler was managed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Ms. Braithwaite wrote that she “will never be a party to determining liability based on the judgement of the court of public opinion without proper evidence being taken in a court of competent jurisdiction, or without the due process of the law being followed…”
But in the same vein, Ms. Braithwaite appears to be subtly determining the innocence of a hospital accused of medical negligence by a misstatement of the law where she argued that an autopsy is the only way to prove medical negligence in Nkanu’s case; and that the standard of proof required is only proof beyond reasonable doubt. Ms. Braithwaite accused the grieving parents of cremating their lost baby as a deliberate move to destroy evidence, without any concrete proof in support of this premature verdict.
Contrary to these, I’ve been able to show that a coroner’s inquest can be conducted in the absence of the body of the deceased Nkanu. Autopsy is not the only way to prove propofol overdose or any of the allegations bordering on pediatric medical negligence. Also, standard of proof required in medical negligence is not only proof beyond reasonable doubt except criminal negligence is alleged, and the absence of the body does not automatically mean that proof beyond reasonable doubt is impossible. Besides, there is no evidence that the cremation of Baby Nkanu was deliberately done to destroy evidence.
Now, if you were the coroner or court in this matter, would you be seeking to confirm if Baby Nkanu had Meningitis when he was brought to Euracare or if the medical care Euracare provided put his life in grave danger?
The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.
