Right of Reply: The column for Readers who feel strongly about issues expressed by the Advocate, and have a view point. 

The Advocate

By Onikepo Braithwaite

Onikepo.braithwaite@thisdaylive.com

Again, I express my condolences to Ms Chimamanda Adichie, Dr Esege and their family, on the sad death of their beloved son, Nkanu Nnamdi. My piece last week elicited an overwhelming response from the public, both here and abroad, and because it’s such an important matter, it is apposite for me to feature some of the comments below.

Baby Nkanu: Braithwaite’s Evidentiary Reasoning

This is a powerful, rigorous, and unsettling piece of legal journalism, and it deserves to be acknowledged as such.

What stands out first is discipline. The article refuses to be swept away by grief-driven certainty, or social-media outrage. It insists, almost stubbornly, on procedure, evidence, and law. In a moment where emotion is overwhelming and public sympathy is understandably aligned with bereaved parents, the author performs the most difficult civic task: separating compassion from conclusions. That alone requires courage.

Technically, the essay is exceptionally grounded. The legal architecture is precise and correct. The deployment of the Coroners’ System Law of Lagos State, especially Sections 14, 15, 26, 39, 41, 48, and 54, is not decorative. It is structural. The reader is walked, step by step, through what the law requires, not what sentiment demands. The discussion of autopsy jurisprudence, anchored in Abelegah v State, Okolie v State, Aderinkomi v State, and State v Chukwu, is textbook appellate reasoning applied to real life. The distinction between cases where postmortem evidence may be dispensed with and those where it is indispensable, is explained with clarity that even a non-Lawyer can follow, without diluting legal accuracy.

Medically, the piece shows restraint and seriousness. It does not pretend to practise medicine by proxy. Instead, it frames medicine through law: duty of care, standard of practice, causation, and proof. The discussion of meningitis is measured and responsible. It does not assert a diagnosis, but it asks the only questions that matter: Why was an LP requested? What was suspected? What were the results? The reminder that bacterial meningitis can kill within 24 hours is not sensationalism; it is clinical reality, and it fundamentally complicates any simplistic narrative of causation.

Emotionally, the writing is controlled, but not cold. The condolences are sincere and dignified. There is no attempt to diminish the parents’ grief or delegitimise their pain. At the same time, the article quietly but firmly reminds the reader that grief is not evidence, and anguish cannot substitute for forensic truth. That balance is rare, and it is ethical.

The most uncomfortable but necessary part of the article, is the discussion on cremation. It is handled without accusation, yet, it lands with devastating logical force. The question is not framed as a moral attack, but as a legal paradox: why destroy the only form of proof capable of confirming the allegation? This is not rhetoric; it is evidentiary reasoning. Any trained Lawyer reading this will immediately feel the unease, because the implications are unavoidable.

The treatment of medical negligence law, is equally sound. The citation of Ojo v Gharoro and Lord Denning’s formulation reinforces that negligence is judged by professional standards, not hindsight outrage. The escalation from professional discipline under the Code of Medical Ethics to potential criminal liability under the Criminal Law of Lagos State is carefully drawn, showing that accountability exists, but only through proof, not presumption.

Above all, the article performs a civic service. It defends the rule of law at a moment when mob justice, reputational destruction, and international embarrassment are being casually dispensed. It does not exonerate anyone. It does not convict anyone. It demands process. That is the highest form of legal integrity.

This is not a pro-hospital piece, or an anti-parent piece. It is a pro-truth piece. It insists that the dead child deserves more than narratives; he deserves answers. And answers, in law and medicine alike, come from evidence, not volume.

In a country where institutions are fragile and public trust is thin, this kind of writing is rare and necessary. It reminds us that justice, like medicine, must be practiced carefully, patiently, and without fear.

Dr Dorai, Lawyer, Singapore

Dear Dr Dorai,

Thank you for your excellent and thorough analysis of my piece. It is interesting that you say: “The question is not framed as a moral attack, but as a legal paradox: why destroy the only form of proof capable of confirming the allegation? This is not rhetoric; it is evidentiary reasoning”. A commentator also mentioned that Propofol metabolises/disappears from the body in a matter of minutes or a few hours, so it doesn’t matter if Nkanu’s remains were cremated. My response is that, the essence of an autopsy is to establish the cause of death, and even if Propofol disappears from the body instantly, if something else and not a Propofol overdose was responsible for Nkanu’s death, this would have been revealed by an autopsy. There are several sides involved in this incident; if an autopsy isn’t required by the side alleging a Propofol overdose to prove its case, it could be required by the others to prove theirs. Therefore, in the interest of justice, any cremation should have been carried out, only after the autopsy had been completed. This is standard procedure, in many countries.

Editor 

…..The Frenzy Over a Single Story

I have just read your piece “Baby Nkanu: Negligence or Meningitis” and thought I should mention it straight away, that this is the most objective and balanced analysis of all the accounts I have read since the sad news broke. 

Even in an adversarial system of justice we practice, the social media and public opinion can sometimes be cruel and the most virulent. We live in a world where judgement, and of guilt, can be summarily passed on you without hearing your own side of the story. This is why your piece is instructive for every voice that have been raised in judgement or condemnation of the hospital involved, without hearing its own side. I couldn’t but agree with you more. Our civilisation can do a lot better, than this human frenzy over a single story.

My heart goes out to our literary icon, over this irreplaceable loss that no parent can ever wish for!. 

Thank you for daring to be different!

Professor Bambo Adewopo, SAN

…..No Winner in This Sad Situation

I read your article in ThisDay Lawyer on the unfortunate situation with Chimamanda Adichie’s son. I want to thank you for a very objective analysis, and for amplifying a word of caution to not adjudicate in the court of public opinion. Regrettably, material evidence appears to no longer exist. There is no winner, in this sad situation.

Yele Aluko, Medical Doctor, USA

Reply to Page 4 Rejoinder

Dear Mr Idenyi,

Thank you, for your rejoinder. 

While Section 21 of the Coroners’ System Law of Lagos State 2007 (CSL) which you refer to, does anticipate an autopsy without a corpse in certain circumstances, I disagree with you that these circumstances include a deceased being wilfully cremated, when such body qualifies as one that requires a Coroner’s Inquest. A community or holistic reading of Section 48(1) of the CSL which I cited last week and Section 21 which you cited, can only lead to the irresistible conclusion that Section 21 of the CSL only refers to circumstances in which a person who dies in violent circumstances such as a fire, resulting in the body being totally or partially destroyed, or circumstances such as a plane crashing into the ocean where the bodies cannot be recovered, and are therefore, unavoidably unavailable for autopsy. In the October 2005 Bellview Crash for example, the aircraft, at a high speed and vertical angle crashed, creating a 9m (30 ft) deep crater in the ground, and everyone on board was killed. The aircraft was completely destroyed, and not a single corpse could be recovered. I submit that, this is the type of situation that Section 21 of the CSL envisages, not voluntary cremation before an autopsy. 

You mischievously cite only the part of Section 48(1) of the CSL that refers to chemical preservation, and conveniently do not mention dismemberment and disposal of remains which would obviously include voluntary cremation. What would be the need to criminalise using chemicals, the dismemberment or the total disposal (such as cremation) of the remains of a deceased who is qualified to be a Coroner’s case in Section 48, prescribing 15 years imprisonment upon conviction for same, if such acts are permitted in Section 21? That would be an absurdity. See Awolowo v Shagari (1979) LPELR-653(SC) per Andrew’s Otutu Obaseki, JSC where his Lordship held thus: “In my opinion, the rule has always been this, if the words of an Act admit of two interpretations, they are not clear; and if one interpretation leads to an absurdity and the other does not, the Court will conclude that the legislature did not intend to lead to an absurdity, and will adopt the other interpretation”. 

I didn’t draft or enact Section 48(1) of the CSL; I simply referred to it. So, for you to state in your rejoinder that: “To suggest otherwise and allege crime in the burial of the deceased child, is to mislead the public and weaponise grief against mourning parents”, is rather uncharitable and unfair. I would never stoop so low as to mislead anyone, nor weaponise grief against anyone. 

It appears that in other countries, where the Coroner’s intervention is necessary, the process of postmortem is completed before cremation is authorised by the approving agency. In Italy, beyond an autopsy, samples may be taken from the deceased and stored for 10 years, in case of any future judicial proceedings. See the Cremation (England and Wales) Regulations 2008; the Italian Cremation Law No. 130 of 2001.

While I do agree with you that medical records are of the utmost importance, and they should reveal the dosage of any medication that had been given to Nkanu, I am still unable to agree that an autopsy isn’t necessary to confirm the exact cause of his death, particularly as you admit that he was critically ill.   This is what I maintained in my article – “And, to determine whether a Propofol overdose was indeed, the cause of Nkanu’s death, or what the cause of his death is, an Autopsy, that is, a postmortem examination upon his death would be required”. You however, appear to conclude in your rejoinder that the cause of Nkanu’s death is a Propofol overdose, predicated on assumptions and presumptions arising from the theory of medicine. 

This back and forth would have been unnecessary, had the cremation been delayed till after the autopsy; it would certainly have brought more clarity to the case. Ms Adichie mentioned in her statement, that Nkanu was taken to Euracare for some diagnostic tests in anticipation of his evacuation to Johns Hopkins Hospital, USA. This points to the fact that most of Nkanu’s medical records may be at Atlantis Hospital, which was his primary hospital, and not Euracare, where he was in transit. You even stated: “Thus, the burden to prove absence of negligence, shifted to the health care facility to explain”. How would they be expected to discharge this burden of proof? Using mostly information from other sources, when direct evidence could have been obtained from an autopsy? An autopsy would have made Euracare less dependent on a third party hospital, Atlantis, or even Nkanu’s normal paediatric clinic in USA (which appears to have been his place of residence), for complete medical records. 

A person with the stature of Nkanu’s Mother, would have been able to secure a rush on her child’s autopsy, so that the cremation wouldn’t be unnecessarily delayed. You cited Ado v State (2019) LPELR-50964(CA), which you state is a case of culpable homicide, to support your position that a court can infer a cause of death from the evidence in the absence of a medical report. We are all aware that an inference is not always correct, as every type of inference, be it deductive, inductive or abductive, can fail for several reasons, including insufficient evidence. You also cite the case of Muhammad v State (2017) LPELR-42098(SC) stating again that it is a case of culpable homicide, also deciding that where the cause of death is obvious, medical evidence isn’t necessary. With respect, these cases are inapplicable; they are not on all fours with Nkanu’s. The cause of Nkanu’s death hasn’t been established; this means it isn’t obvious. It is still in the realm of allegation. See Okolie v State (2014) LPELR-23256(CA); Aderinkomi v State (2021) LPELR-56340(CA).

Finally, I restate the fact that I have only sought to examine the highlights of this unfortunate occurrence vis-à-vis the provisions of the law. I, in no way, attempt to apportion any blame, nor did I ever state that I know Nkanu’s cause of death. I simply asked pertinent questions. As Dr Dorai said, my article “…is not a pro-hospital piece, or an anti-parent piece. It is a pro-truth piece”. As a Parent myself, it is impossible not to feel the pain and grief of Ms Adichie and Dr Esege. 

I hope that the public, medical and legal practitioners, are able to garner some useful information from both our interventions. Let us await the outcome of the Coroner’s Inquest. My position is that, the court of public opinion and social media, are not equipped to decide this matter.