•Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
Three doctors suspended by the Medical and Dental Practitioners Investigation Panel over the death of the son of Nigerian author, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, have faulted the investigative process, alleging lack of fair hearing and misapplication of provisions of the Code of Medical Ethics.
The doctors, who spoke to our correspondent on condition of anonymity for fear of further victimisation, alleged that the panel had a preconceived plan to sanction them unjustly, reports Saturday PUNCH.
They demanded that the indictment be immediately set aside and that a public apology be issued for what they described as irreparable damage to their reputations.
The panel, set up by the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria, announced the suspension of the Medical Director of Euracare Multi-Specialist Hospital, Dr Tunde Majekodunmi; the hospital’s anesthesiologist, Dr Titus Ogundare; and the Chief Medical Officer at Atlantis Pediatric Hospital, Dr Atinuke Uwajeh, following findings of medical negligence in the treatment of 21-month-old Nkanu Adichie-Esege.
The panel said the trio would remain barred from practising medicine in Nigeria until their cases were determined by the Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal.
The panel also said it found a prima facie case of professional misconduct against 10 other doctors who had some form of contact with the patient, while eight other doctors were cleared of any wrongdoing.
The decisions were reached after reviewing complaints against all 21 doctors, examining counter-affidavits, and considering oral depositions on oath. The investigation was concluded during the panel’s 25th session in Abuja on February 17 and 18, 2026.
The tragic death of one of the twin sons of the renowned author and her husband, Ivara Esege, occurred on Wednesday, January 7, 2026, after a brief illness.
Recounting the incident, Adichie alleged medical negligence.
She explained that her son was taken to Euracare Hospital in Lagos for an MRI scan and the insertion of a central line after initially developing what they thought was a common cold, which later “turned into a very serious infection.”
During the procedure, Nkanu was sedated but reportedly not properly monitored after receiving propofol, resulting in complications, including loss of responsiveness, seizures, and cardiac arrest.
But speaking to our correspondent, one of the doctors indicted by the panel accused it of wrongly applying provisions of the Code of Medical Ethics in reaching its decision against them.
According to the doctor, the panel accused him and others of violating Rule 49(c), which he argued was incorrectly interpreted.
A copy of the Code of Medical Ethics of Nigeria obtained by our correspondent showed that Rule 49 deals with private practice by registered medical practitioners who are fully employed as consultants in the public service.
Rule 49(c) states: “A consultant or a registered practitioner of similar status as described in (b) above shall offer in-hospital care to his private patients only within the public hospital in which he is in full employment. It is unethical for a registered practitioner in full-time employment in the public service to give in-hospital care, that is, investigatory, admission and institutional care to patients outside the hospital in which he is in full employment.”
The doctor explained that Nkanu was not his private patient and that he had only been invited to provide an expert opinion.
“They said I violated Rule 49(c), which was a wrong application of the rule. The rule allows medical practitioners to use their professional skills during their free time, provided it does not clash with official duties.
“For this patient, it was on a Saturday, and I was not at work. The patient was not my private patient. Another doctor owned the patient, and I only went there to give an expert opinion,” he stated.
According to him, the doctors have petitioned the council’s leadership over the process, describing the decision as damaging to their professional reputations.
“We believe the decision of the panel was premeditated, and the rule was misapplied. The consequence is reputational injury to many of us,” he added.
The doctor also questioned why the rule was cited against practitioners who, according to him, were not public servants.
He said, “There was a consultant cardiologist who works in a private hospital in Lagos who was invited to perform a cardiograph on the patient, and Rule 49(c) was also quoted against her, even though she does not work in government service.”
He further alleged that the investigative process denied the respondents the opportunity to question the complainant.
“At the panel, the complainant was absent, but her legal counsel was present and allowed to cross-examine us. We were not given the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant or her representatives. The cross-examination was one-sided,” he said.
The doctor also criticised the council for making the panel’s findings public before formally notifying the affected doctors.
“The public statement came out on March 3, but our letters arrived on March 5. Meanwhile, the letter was dated February 25, but the DHL envelope showed it was sent on March 4, a day after the public announcement,” he said.
Another doctor affected by the panel’s findings expressed surprise at being listed among those with a case to answer, insisting that his only contact with the patient was when he was brought in.
The doctor alleged that the panel members conducted the proceedings in an aggressive manner and treated the respondents as though they were already guilty.
“The questioning was aggressive, and we were treated as if we were guilty even before the panel concluded its work,” he said.
The doctor also denied allegations that he violated several provisions of the Code of Medical Ethics, including rules relating to professional fees and employment in both public and private hospitals.
“I do not collect fees from colleagues, and I do not work in any public hospital in Lagos. So, I never violated those rules,” he said.
The medical worker described his indictment as an injustice, warning that the panel’s decision could bring Nigeria’s medical system into disrepute and discourage doctors from carrying out their responsibilities.
“This kind of injustice will not help us; it will only discourage doctors from performing their responsibilities and make people lose their respect for doctors. We have to check what is happening in medical practice. This is a mess that is being done to ridicule the profession, and it is pathetic.
“If everybody is being slapped for the same violation of rules when there was no violation by them, what would one think? Certainly, they (the panel) had ideas before we came. They wanted people suspended, they wanted us charged with misconduct, so that the person who, unfortunately, has lost her child will feel that agencies are working. But you must be fair, no matter whose ox is gored,” he said.
According to him, labelling multiple doctors as having committed professional misconduct without clear evidence could erode public trust in healthcare institutions and discourage practitioners from carrying out their duties.
“If 10 doctors are all accused of misconduct in managing a single patient, what message does that send about our hospitals?” one of them asked.
He demanded immediate reversal of the decision, lamenting that the indictment had caused irreparable damage to his reputation and career.
“I want them (panel) to set the record straight; there was no professional misconduct by me or anybody. Why must you label a whole bunch of 10 doctors as having professional misconduct? How could all 10 doctors jointly mismanage a patient? How does that sound in any person’s ear, that all of them, each time they came, they neglected in each portion of the management? How does that sound? What are you saying about yourself as a country? If that is true, then people should not go to any of our hospitals again,” he said.
Another doctor who was indicted by the panel accused it of bias and a witch-hunt.
She alleged that the doctor who performed the lumbar puncture on Nkanu, which she claimed triggered the complications that led to his death, was not among those indicted.
“The person who performed the procedure that finally led to the death of that child, the lumbar puncture, was not even among the 10 doctors who were indicted.
“It was after the lumbar puncture that the child developed cardiac arrest and never recovered. So, if his name was not included, it means that we probably do not know what we are doing, as far as I am concerned,” she said.
She further accused the panel of unfairly indicting the doctors in order to give the impression that action was being taken.
“I think the panel had already decided what it would do even before inviting us. The decision was to make Nigerians feel that they were working, not necessarily to indict those who actually did wrong,” she added.
When contacted for a reaction to the allegations, the secretary of the panel, Enejo Abdu, declined to comment, saying he was not authorised to speak to the media.
“We do not speak to the press. I’m not authorised to speak to the press, and I’m not speaking to you,” Abdu said.
