Chimamanda Adichie: Court fixes Oct 12 to rule on challenge to coroner’s inquest - The Guardian Nigeria News

Chimamanda Adichie. Photo FACEBOOK Chimamanda Adichie

Chimamanda Adichie. Photo FACEBOOK Chimamanda Adichie

The Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikoyi has fixed October 12, 2026, to rule on an application seeking to halt the coroner’s inquest into the circumstances surrounding the death of Nkanu, son of celebrated Nigerian author, Chimamanda Adichie.

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

The hospital is seeking, among other reliefs, orders of certiorari to quash decisions already 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, raised concerns over fair hearing, the order in which witnesses would 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 the family that made the allegations had presented its own case.

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.

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

He said the hospital had not agreed to be the first to call witnesses, adding that an earlier agreement between the parties concerned the convenience of dates and not the order in which evidence would be presented.

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.

Relying on Sections 14 and 15 of the Lagos State Coroners System Law, Osipitan argued 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 would ordinarily require 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.

Osipitan further submitted that Section 31 of the law, which permits the coroner to dispense with inspection in certain circumstances, did not contemplate a situation where the body no longer existed.

He also told the court that the Chief Pathologist of Lagos State had neither conducted a post-mortem examination nor authorised the cremation.

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, 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 that warranted 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, 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 that the law had assigned to the coroner.

He submitted that, for either remedy to be granted, there must first be a reviewable decision involving a determination of rights or a breach of rights.

According to him, no such reviewable decision existed in the record before the court.

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

Justice Opesanwo consequently adjourned the matter to October 12, 2026, for ruling on the hospital’s application.

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

The deceased’s parents, Adichie and her husband, Dr Ivara Esege, have alleged 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.