Court Clears Way for Inquest into Chimamanda’s Son’s Death Despite Cremation

Wale Igbintade

The Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikoyi on Monday cleared the way for a coroner’s inquest into the death of Nkanu Esege, son of renowned Nigerian author, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, ruling that the cremation of his body did not, in itself, prevent the inquiry from proceeding.

Justice Aishat Opesanwo gave the ruling while striking out an application by Eurapharma Care Services Nigeria Limited, operators of Euracare Multi-Specialist Hospital, seeking to stop the inquest.

The hospital had argued that the cremation made a post-mortem examination impossible and deprived the coroner of jurisdiction.

It also challenged the procedure for receiving statements and evidence from medical personnel and other parties connected with the facilities where Nkanu was treated before his death.

Nkanu died on January 7, 2026, following medical procedures, prompting an investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death.

In her ruling, Justice Opesanwo held that conducting an inquest was a statutory obligation where the circumstances of a death met the conditions prescribed by law.

She said the hospital had failed to disprove the conditions empowering the coroner to proceed under Section 15 of the Coroners System Law of Lagos State 2007.

The judge explained that the law did not require the deceased’s body to remain within the coroner’s district when the inquest was held.

She also rejected the argument that the absence of the body would necessarily render the inquiry speculative.

Describing the hospital’s concerns about the eventual outcome as premature, she noted that the inquest had yet to commence formally.

Justice Opesanwo said a coroner’s inquest was a fact-finding exercise intended to establish who died, how, when and where the death occurred, rather than a trial to determine guilt or apportion blame.

“It is not a trial, no one is on trial in a coroner’s court,” she said.

The judge also dismissed the hospital’s fair hearing argument, holding that the coroner had the discretion to determine the sequence in which statements and evidence would be received.

She said disagreement with the exercise of that discretion did not, in itself, establish a breach of fair hearing. She added that the rules governing ordinary civil proceedings did not apply in the same manner to a coroner’s inquest.

The court upheld the respondents’ preliminary objections and struck out the hospital’s application, clearing the way for the inquest to proceed.