Three doctors suspended over the death of the son of renowned Nigerian author, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, have challenged the decision of the Medical and Dental Practitioners Investigation Panel, alleging that the process that led to their indictment was unfair and based on a misinterpretation of medical ethics rules.
The doctors, who spoke anonymously for fear of further sanctions, told Saturday PUNCH that the panel’s findings were predetermined and had caused significant damage to their professional reputations.
The Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria’s investigative panel had earlier suspended the Medical Director of Euracare Multi-Specialist Hospital, Dr. Tunde Majekodunmi, the hospital’s anesthesiologist, Dr. Titus Ogundare, and the Chief Medical Officer of Atlantis Pediatric Hospital, Dr. Atinuke Uwajeh, over alleged medical negligence in the treatment of Adichie’s 21-month-old son, Nkanu Adichie-Esege.
The panel ruled that the three doctors should remain barred from practising medicine in Nigeria pending the determination of their cases before the Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. It also said 10 other doctors had questions to answer over their roles in the child’s treatment, while eight practitioners were cleared.
However, one of the affected doctors argued that the panel wrongly applied provisions of the Code of Medical Ethics, particularly Rule 49(c), in reaching its decision.
According to the doctor, the rule relates to private practice by consultants fully employed in public hospitals and should not have been applied in his case.
“They said I violated Rule 49(c), but that interpretation is wrong,” he said. “The patient was not my private patient. I was only invited to give an expert opinion on a Saturday when I was not on duty.”
He added that the doctors had formally petitioned the leadership of the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria to review the decision.
“We believe the decision was premeditated, and the rule was misapplied. The outcome has caused reputational injury to many of us,” he said.
The doctor also questioned why the rule was cited against practitioners who were not employed in public service.
“There was a consultant cardiologist who works in a private hospital who was invited to conduct a cardiograph on the patient, yet Rule 49(c) was quoted against her,” he stated.
The doctors also alleged that the investigative process denied them the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant.
“At the panel sitting, the complainant was absent, but her lawyer was present and allowed to cross-examine us,” one of them said.
“We were not given the same opportunity to question the complainant or her representative. The cross-examination was one-sided.”
Another doctor said the panel’s proceedings appeared hostile from the outset.
“The questioning was aggressive, and we were treated as if we were already guilty before the panel concluded its work,” he said.
He also criticised the council for announcing the panel’s findings publicly before the affected doctors received formal notification.
“The public statement came out on March 3, but our letters arrived on March 5,” he said.
“Meanwhile, the letter was dated February 25, yet the DHL envelope showed it was sent on March 4.”
One of the doctors warned that the mass indictment of practitioners in the case could erode public confidence in Nigeria’s healthcare system.
“If 10 doctors are accused of professional misconduct in managing a single patient, what message does that send about our hospitals?” he asked.
Another doctor also alleged that the practitioner who performed the lumbar puncture on the child — a procedure she claimed triggered the complications that led to his death — was not among those indicted.
“The person who carried out the lumbar puncture was not listed among the 10 doctors with a case to answer,” she said. “After that procedure, the child went into cardiac arrest and never recovered.”
She accused the panel of targeting several doctors simply to demonstrate that action was being taken.
“It appeared the decision had already been made before we were invited,” she said. “The aim seemed to be to show Nigerians that something was being done rather than to identify those actually responsible.”
When contacted for comment, the secretary of the panel, Enejo Abdu, declined to speak, saying he was not authorised to address the media.
The case stems from the death of Adichie’s son on January 7, 2026, following a brief illness.
The child had reportedly been taken to a Lagos hospital for an MRI scan and the insertion of a central line after a suspected infection worsened.
Adichie had earlier alleged that medical negligence contributed to the tragedy.
