Chimamanda Adichie’s Son: Court Clears Way For Coroner’s Inquest

A Lagos State High Court has ruled that the cremation of Nkanu Esege, son of celebrated Nigerian author Chimamanda Adichie, does not prevent a coroner from investigating the circumstances surrounding his death.

Justice Aishat Opesanwo gave the ruling on Monday at the court sitting in Osborne Foreshore, Ikoyi, while striking out an application by Eurapharma Care Services Nigeria Limited, operators of Euracare Multi-Specialist Hospital.

Naija News understands that the hospital had asked the court to stop the coroner’s inquest into Nkanu’s death, arguing that the cremation of his body meant a post-mortem examination could no longer be conducted.

It also challenged the coroner’s decision to receive statements and evidence from medical personnel and other parties linked to the facilities where Nkanu received treatment before his death.

However, Justice Opesanwo dismissed the arguments, holding that the law required an inquest where the conditions specified by the relevant legislation were met.

Nkanu died on January 7, 2026, following medical procedures. His death led to an investigation into the circumstances surrounding his demise.

In her ruling, the judge said the coroner’s decision to conduct an inquest was based on a legal duty, not a matter of personal choice.

“The provision gives no room for exercise of discretion in the decision to conduct an inquest once a death results from any one of the nine situations specified, and that it occurs within the area designated as the coroner’s district,” she said.

Justice Opesanwo held that Euracare had failed to disprove the conditions that gave the coroner the power to conduct the inquiry under Section 15 of the Coroners System Law of Lagos State 2007.

She explained that the hospital’s argument focused on where the deceased’s body was located when the inquest was due to take place, rather than the circumstances that first gave the coroner jurisdiction.

According to the judge, the law does not require the body to remain within the coroner’s district on the date the inquest is held.

She also rejected the claim that cremating the body would make the investigation speculative or undermine its findings.

“I am not persuaded by the submission made by the applicant’s counsel that the cremation of the body means the inquest and its conclusion will be predicated on speculation and conjecture,” the judge said.

She noted that the inquest had yet to begin formally, adding that the hospital was raising concerns about an outcome that had not been reached.

“What is obvious is that the applicant is concerned with future occurrences, which is the outcome of the inquest,” she added.

Justice Opesanwo explained that a coroner’s inquest was a fact-finding process designed to establish who died, how and when the death occurred, and where it happened.

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

The judge stressed that the process was inquisitorial rather than adversarial, explaining that it was not meant to punish anyone or determine blame but to establish the facts surrounding a death.

She also dismissed Euracare’s objection to the order in which the coroner planned to receive statements and evidence.

According to her, the coroner has the discretion to decide the sequence in which evidence is presented, and disagreement with that decision does not automatically amount to a breach of fair hearing.

“The fact that the exercise of this discretion is still required to be guided by some principles does not impeach the independence of the person vested with the discretionary prerogative to exercise that discretion,” she said.

Justice Opesanwo added that the fact that another person might have made a different decision did not, by itself, invalidate the coroner’s action.

She further noted that the rules of evidence and procedure applied in ordinary civil cases do not operate in exactly the same way during a coroner’s inquest.

The judge held that the hospital’s application was based on a misunderstanding of the purpose and nature of the inquiry.

She ruled that the preliminary objections raised by the respondents succeeded and consequently struck out Euracare’s substantive application, clearing the way for the coroner’s inquest to proceed.