Adichie Briefs Prof. Kemi Pinheiro, SAN Over Son’s Death As Legal Battle Nears

Renowned Nigerian author Chimamanda Adichie and her partner, Dr. Ivara Esege, have briefed senior advocate Prof. Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, as legal action looms over the death of their 21-month-old son, Nkanu Nnamdi Adichie-Esege, following medical procedures at a private hospital in Lagos.
In a detailed legal notice dated January 10, 2026, the couple, through their solicitors, accused the hospital, its anaesthesiologist, and attending medical personnel of medical negligence and professional impropriety, alleging breaches of the duty of care owed to their son, who died in the early hours of January 7, 2026.
According to the notice, the child, born on March 25, 2024, was referred to the hospital on January 6, 2026, from Atlantis Pediatric Hospital for 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, the insertion of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC line), and a lumbar puncture. The notice, issued “without prejudice” to the parents’ rights, was signed by the law firm led by Prof. Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, who was described as the firm’s founding partner.
The solicitors stated that intravenous sedation was administered using propofol. However, complications allegedly developed during the child’s transfer from the MRI suite to the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Despite being under sedation, the child was said to have been transferred between clinical areas under conditions that raised “serious and substantive concerns” about compliance with established patient-safety and paediatric anaesthesia protocols. He was later pronounced dead.
The legal notice outlines multiple alleged lapses in paediatric anaesthetic and procedural 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.
The parents further alleged that their son was transferred without supplemental oxygen, without adequate monitoring, and without sufficient accompanying medical personnel. They also raised concerns over the availability of basic resuscitation equipment, delayed recognition and management of respiratory or cardiovascular compromise, and an overall failure to comply with established paediatric anaesthesia, patient-transfer, and safety protocols.
Another major grievance cited was the alleged failure of the hospital to adequately disclose the risks and potential side effects of propofol and other anaesthetic agents, thereby undermining the legal requirement for informed consent.
According to the solicitors, these alleged lapses amount to prima facie breaches of the duty of care and render the hospital and all medical personnel involved liable for medical negligence resulting in the child’s death.
As part of their next legal steps, the parents have demanded certified copies of all medical records relating to their son’s treatment within seven days of receipt of the notice. The requested documents include admission notes, consent forms, pre-anaesthetic assessments, anaesthetic charts, drug administration records, monitoring logs, procedural notes, nursing observations, ICU records, incident reports, and the identities of all medical staff involved. The demand also extends to internal reviews, MRI suite safety logs, and any other documentation connected to the child’s care.
The hospital has also been formally placed on notice to preserve all relevant evidence, whether physical or electronic. This includes CCTV footage from procedure rooms and corridors, electronic monitoring data, pharmacy and drug inventory records, crash-cart and emergency equipment logs, internal communications, and any morbidity and mortality reviews.
The solicitors 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 attendant legal consequences.
The letter concludes that failure or refusal by the hospital to comply with the demands within the stipulated timeframe will leave the parents with no option but to pursue all available legal, regulatory, and judicial remedies against the hospital and all medical personnel involved.