Prejudicial Extra-Judicial Comments: Ms Chimamanda Adichie’s Statement

 

While the list of what constitutes abuse of court process isn’t exhaustive, it also covers situations where trial Lawyers make extra-judicial comments that may be prejudicial to the court proceedings, or may interfere with the fair trial of a case. Such behaviour is a breach of the ‘sub judice’ rule, that is, Section 33 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023 (RPC). Usually, one finds that it is Lawyers who want to garner support from the unknowing public because their cases may be weak in law, that deploy such tactics to win sympathy. Nevertheless, it appears that Section 33 of the RPC only applies to Counsel who are trial Lawyers in a matter, and are prohibited from making prejudicial statements (fair comments are allowed by all), and don’t directly apply to litigants and others. Therefore, Counsel can decide not to discourage their clients from making statements that they as trial Lawyers are prohibited from making, as some type of tactic to win in the court of public opinion, at the very least, even if they can’t win in a court of law. See for instance the 2023 Presidential election petitions, and the parallel court of public opinion trials.

As unseemly as prejudicial extra-judicial statements of a litigant may be, I’m not sure if or where it falls when it comes to abuse of court process – maybe ‘contempt ex-facie curiae’? I suppose opposing Counsel can issue and file in court, a “Cease and Desist Notice” to demand that such litigant refrain from making categorical, inflammatory, prejudicial statements and stop acting as the Prosecutor, Judge and Jury in their own case, so that the Judge may be constrained to issue a gag order if necessary, as was done to Donald Trump during his  trial before he became President.

Recently, my attention was drawn by several people, to a statement allegedly issued by Ms Chimamanda Adichie which apparently made the rounds on social media, about the events surrounding the death of her son, Nkanu. She started by stating that losing a child is a parent’s worst nightmare. I agree with her entirely, on that point. Only God can bring comfort and healing, for such an indescribable loss. As a Parent, I empathise and sympathise deeply, that such an awful thing has happened. 

I was referred to Paragraph 15 of Ms Adichie’s statement particularly where she stated thus: “Not long after, an article appeared in the Nigerian press which any reasonable person would assume was orchestrated by Euracare, claiming our son had died of meningitis. It was a cheap and ugly strategy to deflect from the truth”. 

Ms Adichie could certainly not have been referring to my article of January 20, 2026: “Baby Nkanu: Negligence or Meningitis?”, because firstly, she was the one who brought the sad death of her son to the public space, thereby making it a topical legal issue for discussion; secondly, as a Lawyer, I am trained to stick to the facts and evidence, not avoid them. Thirdly, nowhere in my article did I state that Meningitis was the cause of Nkanu’s death. Even the title of my aforementioned article is a question, not a statement of fact. What I did say was that Ms Adichie had in an earlier statement, mentioned that in anticipation of Nkanu’s evacuation to Johns Hopkins Hospital, USA (JH), they had requested for a Lumbar Puncture (LP) and an MRI. I said: “The request shows that Nkanu was in a serious condition, and JH suspected that he may have had Meningitis or some neurological symptoms, which is what LP diagnoses, with the MRI to provide detailed images of the brain and spinal cord to check a possible spread, if indeed, that was the case”. I also said: “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”.  This is self-explanatory.

Counsel to Ms Adichie was given a right of reply to my aforementioned article, and in my response to it, I concluded vehemently thus: “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”. I submit that my article was simply a statement of legal principles and an interrogation of issues, and I take exception, if anyone describes it as otherwise. 

In her recent statement recalling the events surrounding Nkanu’s death, Ms Adichie notably omitted reference to the fact that contrary to Section 48(1) of the Coroner’s System Law of Lagos State 2007, he was cremated before any autopsy could be performed, to determine the cause of his death. Would they have been able to carry out such cremation, if the unfortunate death had occurred in USA where they reside? I think not. That act of wilfully destroying his body in what qualifies as a Coroner’s case, is a serious offence that carries a 15 year imprisonment sentence upon conviction. 

It was therefore bizarre, to read in paragraph 19 of her statement that Euracare wasn’t approaching the Coroner’s Inquest scheduled for sometime in April, with the seriousness the process demands. This is a classic example of deflecting from the truth, gaslighting, transferring the blame, diverting attention from the fact that by virtue of Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, all parties are entitled to a fair hearing, which, on the part of the hospitals involved in this case, particularly Euracare, must necessarily involve an autopsy, in order for them to defend themselves by attempting to disprove the allegation of negligence/administering an overdose. This fundamental right may have been breached by those who cremated Nkanu, and are also the Petitioners in the case. If an autopsy had been performed, Nkanu’s cause of death would have been definitively established, and this discourse may have been needless. 

Would any reasonable party sit and fold their arms in light of such serious allegations levelled against them, or seek to establish the fact that they may be unable to effectively challenge the allegations or have access to relevant information, because an autopsy cannot be performed? In Maikaba v Arto Pharmaceutical Chemist Ltd & Ors (2026) LPELR-83073(SC) per Tijjani Abubakar, JSC, the Supreme Court held: “This Court again, in Obasan v Abudu & Ors ((2023) LPELR-59944(SC)), emphasised that the right to fair hearing is so fundamental that its breach renders any proceeding, decision, or judgement null and void, irrespective of how well-conducted the proceedings might otherwise appear….a nullity ab initio, and cannot be salvaged”. 

Conclusion 

The persistent culture of forum shopping, judicial defiance of hierarchy, and unbridled extra-judicial commentary, demonstrated by the cases of Justice Lifu, the FBN/GHL saga, and the public discourse surrounding Baby Nkanu’s death, erodes public confidence in the administration of justice. When grieving litigants cremate a body in a clear Coroner’s case, thereby denying the hospital they accuse of negligence the autopsy essential to fair hearing, the rule of law itself is undermined. The attempt by the party levelling the accusations, to dismiss such a fundamental breach of a right that is critical in legal proceedings as a mere diversionary tactic, only compounds the injustice.

It is time for structural reform. The NJC and LPDC must move beyond a purely petition-driven regime, by incorporating ‘suo motu’ powers to query erring Judges and Lawyers in notorious, high-profile matters. Discipline that fails to deter, is no discipline at all. Only proactive accountability anchored in due process and professional integrity, can restore the Bar and Bench to the standards of the “good old days”, and rebuild the citizenry’s faith in the justice system.