Chimamanda Adichie Demands Answers After Lagos Hospital Linked to Son’s Death

Renowned Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie has called for accountability from a private hospital in Lagos following the death of her 21-month-old son, Nkanu Nnamdi, after undergoing medical procedures. The allegations, detailed in a formal legal notice, accuse the hospital and some of its medical personnel of negligence and professional misconduct.

In the notice dated January 10, 2026, lawyers representing Adichie and her partner, Dr Ivara Esege, said the hospital, its anaesthesiologist and attending medical staff breached the duty of care owed to their son, Master Nkanu Adichie-Esege. The child was pronounced dead in the early hours of January 7, 2026.

According to the document, Nkanu, who was born on March 25, 2024, had been referred to the Lagos hospital on January 6 from Atlantis Pediatric Hospital. He was scheduled to undergo a series of diagnostic and preparatory procedures ahead of a planned 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. The legal notice, issued “without prejudice” and signed by a law firm led by Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, stated that intravenous sedation using propofol was administered during the process.

The parents alleged that complications developed while their son was being transported to the cardiac catheterisation laboratory after the MRI. They claimed that, despite being under sedation, the child was transferred between clinical areas under conditions that raised serious concerns about compliance with patient safety protocols.

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

The notice listed several alleged lapses in care, including 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. It also alleged that the child was transferred without supplemental oxygen, adequate monitoring or sufficient accompanying medical personnel.

Other concerns raised include questions about the availability of basic resuscitation equipment and an alleged delay in recognising and managing signs of respiratory or cardiovascular distress. The parents further alleged an overall failure to comply with established paediatric anaesthesia, patient-transfer and safety protocols.

Another major issue highlighted was the alleged failure of the hospital to fully disclose the risks and potential side effects of propofol and other anaesthetic agents. The parents said this undermined the legal requirement for informed consent before medical procedures.

The solicitors described these alleged failures as prima facie breaches of duty of care, saying they render the hospital and the involved medical personnel liable for medical negligence resulting in the child’s death.

As part of their next legal steps, the parents demanded certified copies of all medical records related to their son’s treatment within seven days. These include admission notes, consent forms, pre-anaesthetic assessments, anaesthetic charts, drug administration records, monitoring logs, procedural notes, nursing observations, ICU records and incident reports, as well as the identities of all medical staff involved.

They also requested internal reviews, MRI suite safety logs and related documentation. In addition, the hospital was put on notice to preserve all evidence, including CCTV footage, electronic monitoring data, pharmacy and drug inventory records, emergency equipment logs and internal communications.

The lawyers 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 possible legal consequences. They added 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 the medical personnel involved.