Solicitors for Nigerian novelist Chimamanda Adichie have written to Euracare Multi-Specialist Hospital in Lagos regarding the death of her 21-month-old son, Nkanu Nnamdi.
This comes as the Lagos State Government stated that the clinic’s anesthesiologist has been suspended while investigations into the child’s death continue.
In a legal notice dated January 10, 2026, solicitors for Chimamanda and her spouse, Dr. Ivara Esege, claimed that the hospital, its anesthesiologist, and other medical workers breached their duty of care to her son, who died in the early hours of Wednesday, January 7, 2026.
PINHEIRO LP issued the notice on behalf of the parents, which was signed by Prof. Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), the founding partner.
According to the notice, the child was taken to the hospital on January 6, 2026, by Atlantis Pediatric Hospital for a series of diagnostic and preparatory treatments.
The procedures comprised an echocardiography, a brain MRI, the insertion of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC line), and a lumbar puncture.
The treatments were reportedly part of preparations for an impending medical evacuation to the United States, where a specialist medical team was believed to be waiting to greet him.
The solicitors indicated that propofol was used for intravenous sedation.
However, while being transported to the cardiac catheterization laboratory following the MRI treatment, the youngster apparently suffered unexpected and severe problems.
Despite being sedated, he was reportedly transported between clinical areas in situations that created “serious and substantive concerns” about patient-safety measures.
He was later proclaimed dead in the early morning of January 7, 2026.
The legal notice details several claimed errors in pediatric anesthetic and procedural care.
These include issues about propofol’s appropriateness and cumulative dose in a critically ill infant, insufficient airway protection during profound sedation, and an apparent inability to ensure continuous physiological monitoring.
The parents also claimed that their son was relocated without supplemental oxygen, adequate monitoring, or sufficient accompanying medical personnel.
They also expressed concerns about the availability of basic resuscitation equipment, the delay in recognizing and managing respiratory or cardiovascular distress, and a general failure to follow recognized pediatric anesthesia, patient transfer, and safety standards.
Another prominent gripe was the hospital’s apparent inability to appropriately disclose the dangers and probable side effects of propofol and other anesthetic medicines, weakening the legal requirement for informed consent.
According to the solicitors, the alleged omissions constitute prima facie violations of the duty of care, making the hospital and any medical workers involved accountable for medical negligence that resulted in the child’s death.
As part of their next legal proceedings, the parents requested certified copies of all medical records related to their son’s treatment within seven days of receiving the notice.
Admission notes, consent forms, pre-anesthetic assessments, anesthetic charts, drug administration records, monitoring logs, procedural notes, nursing observations, ICU records, incident reports, and all medical personnel identities are among the papers required.
The requirement also includes internal evaluations, MRI safety logs, and any other documents related to the child’s care.
The hospital was also given formal notice to preserve any pertinent material, whether physical or electronic.
This includes CCTV footage from procedure rooms and halls, electronic monitoring data, pharmacy and drug inventory records, crash-cart and emergency equipment logs, internal communications, and any morbidity and mortality assessments.
The solicitors warned that “any destruction, alteration, or loss of such evidence after receipt of this letter shall be regarded as suppression or concealment of evidence and obstruction of the course of justice and will be relied upon accordingly, with attendant legal consequences.”
The letter finished by stating that if the hospital failed or refused to comply with the demands within the timeframe specified, the parents would be forced to pursue all available legal, regulatory, and judicial remedies against the institution and all medical workers involved.
Euracare Hospital had noted in a Saturday statement that it had commenced “a detailed investigation” into the incident in line with its clinical governance standards and best practices, while pledging to engage transparently and responsibly with all relevant clinical and regulatory processes.
