A Doctor’s Call for Clarity on the Nigerian Medical Association’s Role in the Nnamdi Kanu Trial

Dr. Adefolaseye Adebomi Adebayo, a respected ENT and Head & Neck Surgeon, has publicly challenged the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) regarding its reported role in declaring Mr. Nnamdi Kanu, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, fit to stand trial in Abuja. In an open letter addressed to Prof. Bala Mohammed Audu, National President of the NMA, Dr. Adebomi demands clarification on the statutory and constitutional grounds that empower the Association to make such declarations in legal proceedings.

Her concerns arise from recent media reports suggesting that the NMA, as an institution, had assessed and confirmed that Mr. Kanu’s medical condition was not life-threatening and that he was fit to face trial. Dr. Adebomi points out that according to the NMA’s constitution and by-laws—documents available to members—the Association’s functions are primarily professional, ethical, and advocacy-related, and not judicial or medico-legal in the nature of determining fitness to stand trial.

She emphasizes the standard medico-legal process traditionally employed in such cases, where courts themselves appoint qualified medical experts or multidisciplinary panels—often including forensic psychiatrists—to evaluate an accused person’s physical and mental health. These experts then report their findings directly to the court, which holds the sole authority to determine an individual’s fitness for trial.

Dr. Adebomi warns that if the NMA’s involvement is limited to administering expert nominations, any declarations of fitness should clearly be attributed to those individual experts, not to the NMA as an institutional body. She urges the National Secretariat to clarify:

ADVERTISEMENT

• Under which specific article or section of the NMA Constitution does the Association hold authority to constitute or endorse medical panels for assessing legal fitness?
• Whether the panel that examined Mr. Nnamdi Kanu was indeed a court-appointed body organized through the NMA or if the result was publicly presented as an official NMA declaration?
• How such a declaration aligns with the NMA’s constitutional and ethical mandates if issued as an institutional verdict?

This inquiry, she insists, is vital for upholding the independence and integrity of the medical profession while ensuring the public correctly understands the NMA’s role in sensitive medico-legal matters.

The backdrop to this controversy involves directives from Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, who ordered an independent medical assessment of Mr. Kanu following conflicting reports from prosecution and defense about his health condition and suitability for trial. The Nigerian Medical Association was subsequently tasked to conduct this medical evaluation.

While the NMA’s medical panel reportedly concluded that Mr. Kanu was medically fit for trial and his ailment was not life-threatening, Dr. Adebomi and many colleagues call for a formal public explanation to clarify the legal and professional boundaries of the Association’s role in these proceedings.

Dr. Adebomi’s letter concludes with a respectful appeal for transparency from the NMA leadership, hoping to reassure both members and the public in this highly sensitive legal and political matter.

The debate sparked by this open letter highlights the critical intersection of medicine, law, and ethics, shining a spotlight on the necessity for adherence to established constitutional roles in medico-legal assessments and declarations.