Chimamanda Adichie Serves Legal Notice Over Son’s Death, Accuses Hospital of Negligence

•Demands certified copies of all medical records

Wale Igbintade

Renowned Nigerian author Chimamanda Adichie has demanded accountability from a private hospital in Lagos, accusing it of medical negligence and professional impropriety following the death of her 21-month-old son, Nkanu Nnamdi, after a series of medical procedures.

In a detailed legal notice dated January 10, 2026, solicitors acting for Adichie and her partner, Dr. Ivara Esege, alleged that the hospital, its anaesthesiologist, and other attending medical personnel breached the duty of care owed to their son, Master Nkanu Adichie-Esege, who died in the early hours of January 7, 2026.

According to the notice, the child, born on March 25, 2024, was referred to the hospital on January 6, 2026, from Atlantis Pediatric Hospital for diagnostic and preparatory procedures ahead of an imminent medical evacuation to the United States, where a specialist medical team was reportedly on standby.

The procedures included an echocardiogram, a brain MRI, insertion of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC line), and a lumbar puncture. Intravenous sedation was said to have been administered using propofol.

However, the notice alleged that during transportation to the cardiac catheterisation laboratory after the MRI, the child developed sudden and severe complications.

Despite being under sedation, he was reportedly transferred between clinical areas under conditions that raised “serious and substantive concerns” about compliance with patient-safety protocols.

He was later pronounced dead in the early hours of January 7.

The legal notice, issued “without prejudice” to the parents’ rights and signed by the law firm led by Prof. Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, outlines multiple alleged lapses in paediatric anaesthetic and procedural care.

These include concerns about the appropriateness and cumulative dosing of propofol in a critically ill child, inadequate airway protection during deep sedation, and failure to ensure continuous physiological monitoring.

The parents further alleged that their son was transferred without supplemental oxygen, without adequate monitoring, and without sufficient accompanying medical personnel.

They also raised concerns about the availability of basic resuscitation equipment, delayed recognition and management of respiratory or cardiovascular compromise, and an overall failure to comply with established paediatric anaesthesia, patient-transfer, and safety protocols.

Another key grievance cited was the alleged failure of the hospital to adequately disclose the risks and potential side effects of propofol and other anaesthetic agents, thereby undermining the legal requirement for informed consent.

According to the solicitors, these alleged lapses amount to prima facie breaches of the duty of care and render the hospital and the medical personnel involved liable for medical negligence resulting in the child’s death.

As part of their next legal steps, the parents have demanded certified copies of all medical records relating to their son’s treatment within seven days of receipt of the notice.

The requested documents include admission notes, consent forms, pre-anaesthetic assessments, anaesthetic charts, drug administration records, monitoring logs, procedural notes, nursing observations, ICU records, incident reports, and the identities of all medical staff involved.

The demand also covers internal reviews, safety logs from the MRI suite, and any other documentation connected to the child’s care.

The hospital has further been placed on formal notice to preserve all relevant evidence, whether physical or electronic.

This includes CCTV footage from procedure rooms and corridors, electronic monitoring data, pharmacy and drug inventory records, crash-cart and emergency equipment logs, internal communications, and any morbidity and mortality reviews.

The solicitors warned that any destruction, alteration, or loss of evidence after receipt of the notice would be treated as suppression of evidence and obstruction of justice, with attendant legal consequences.

The letter warned that failure to comply with the demands within the stipulated timeframe would leave the parents with no option but to pursue all available legal, regulatory, and judicial remedies against the hospital and all medical personnel involved.