When a family wants burial, investigators seek answers and the public demands accountability, where should the law draw the line?
“Justice is not only a two-way traffic. It is a three-way traffic—justice for the accused, justice for the victim and justice for society.“
Those enduring words of the late Supreme Court Justice, Chukwudifu Oputa, have echoed through Nigeria’s criminal justice system for decades. Few recent cases illustrate that principle more vividly than the controversy surrounding the death of Mary Habila.
Her family wants her body released for burial without an autopsy.
The Minister of Works has insisted that a forensic examination should determine the cause of death.
The Ebonyi State Police Command earlier indicated that a post-mortem examination was necessary to establish the medical facts.
Student organisations have endorsed that position, arguing that only an independent scientific examination can dispel speculation and ensure public confidence.
The disagreement has produced a legal question that reaches far beyond one family: Can the search for truth end because relatives no longer want an autopsy?
An Autopsy Is Not About Blame
Popular opinion often treats an autopsy as an accusation. Lawyers and forensic pathologists say that assumption is mistaken. A post-mortem examination is, first and foremost, an investigative tool. It may confirm that a death resulted entirely from natural causes. It may reveal an accident. It may identify an undiagnosed medical condition. It may equally uncover evidence of poisoning, violence or another criminal act.
Just as importantly, it can clear innocent people whose reputations have become entangled in public suspicion. In that sense, an autopsy protects everyone—the deceased, relatives, investigators and those whose names have entered public debate.
Does the Family Have the Final Say?
Many Nigerians understandably assume that next of kin alone determine whether an autopsy should take place. The legal position is often more nuanced.
Across Nigeria, coronial procedures differ because states operate under different Coroners Laws or related legislation. However, where a death is sudden, unexplained, violent or otherwise considered a matter of public concern, investigative authorities may seek judicial approval or rely on statutory powers to establish the medical cause of death.
Ultimately, the question is not simply what the family wants. It is whether the law considers further investigation necessary in the interests of justice. That determination belongs to the legal process rather than public opinion.
Why Courts Sometimes Permit Autopsies Despite Objections
Courts in many common-law jurisdictions—including the United Kingdom, Canada and South Africa—have recognised that the public interest may occasionally outweigh objections from relatives where an unexplained death requires independent investigation.
The reasoning is straightforward. The justice system has responsibilities extending beyond private grief. It must determine whether a crime occurred. It must protect innocent people from suspicion. It must preserve public confidence in criminal investigations.
Without reliable forensic evidence, those objectives may become difficult to achieve.
Social Media Cannot Replace Science
The controversy surrounding Mary Habila’s death has generated intense online discussion. Some commentators have demanded criminal investigations. Others have defended those mentioned in public discourse. Many have advanced theories unsupported by official findings.
None of those opinions—whether sympathetic or accusatory—constitutes evidence.
In criminal investigations, courts rely on forensic findings, witness testimony, documentary evidence and expert opinion, not social media verdicts.
Justice demands proof. Not popularity.
The Rights of the Dead
Modern legal systems increasingly recognise that every unexplained death engages more than private interests.
The deceased has an interest in the truth being known. The family has an interest in dignity, closure and respect. Any person whose reputation may be affected has an interest in a fair investigation. Society has an interest in ensuring that unexplained deaths are neither ignored nor politicised.
Justice Oputa’s famous observation captures that balance perhaps better than any statute. Justice belongs to all three.
The Shifting Accounts
It must be noted however that Umahi has provided several shifting accounts regarding the tragic death of Mary Habila
1. Her Profession
- Initial Statements: Umahi initially stated that Mary Habila was a physiotherapist employed by the David Umahi Federal University of Health Sciences, Uburu, and was assigned to his residence to provide physiotherapy.
- Later Clarification: In subsequent press conferences, he corrected this, stating she was a nurse who lived in his residence and had administered drugs and injections to him and his staff for three years.
2. The Cause and Circumstances of Death
- Medical Complications: Umahi stated that Habila died from natural causes related to excessive bleeding. He suggested her medical records would verify that she had been managing existing health issues and had been receiving treatment at a Turkish hospital.
- The Boyfriend’s Account: Umahi narrated a final phone conversation the victim allegedly had with her boyfriend hours before her demise. According to the Minister, she complained of a nosebleed but declined to go to the hospital, saying she would take a bath instead. The boyfriend told investigators he cut the call, and when he called back three minutes later, she did not respond.
3. The Discovery and the “Second Woman” Affidavit
- The Discovery: Umahi stated that the following morning, her door was locked and had to be broken down. She was found lifeless in her room while the bathroom tap was allegedly still running.
- Anita Baaki’s Sworn Affidavit: To support the sequence of events, a colleague and friend who travelled with Mary, Anita Baaki, submitted a sworn affidavit. She corroborated that they stayed in adjoining rooms in the Uburu staff chalet and that Mary had complained of extreme exhaustion the night prior.
4. Investigation and Autopsy Requests
- Dismissal of Foul Play: Umahi continuously dismissed speculations of a cover-up or foul play, emphasizing that he stayed in a separate part of the estate and would not have been involved. He threatened legal action against commentators who politicized the incident.
- Insistence on Autopsy: Amid public outrage and conflicting reports, Umahi officially requested that the Nigeria Police conduct a thorough forensic autopsy to establish the exact cause of death.
Controversy and Public Scrutiny
Reports from police sources have also surfaced disputing aspects of the Minister’s account and challenging attempts to quickly release the body for burial prior to a conclusive autopsy.
The Question Nigeria Must Answer
Mary Habila’s case will eventually leave the headlines. The legal principle will remain.
Whenever an unexplained death attracts exceptional public concern, should investigators be permitted to establish the medical facts before burial, even where relatives object?
Reasonable people may answer differently. Yet one principle commands almost universal agreement. Truth is strongest when it rests on evidence rather than speculation.
Whether that evidence ultimately points to natural causes, accident or criminal conduct, the justice system owes every deceased person—and every citizen—the same obligation: To pursue the facts carefully, impartially and without fear or favour. Only then can grief give way to certainty.
And only then can justice, in Justice Oputa’s words, serve not only the family or those under suspicion, but society itself.
