Medical Negligence And Low Priority On Life By the Nigerian State
The right to life, guaranteed under Section 33 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), is the most fundamental of all human rights. Yet, in Nigeria, this right continues to be endangered not only by insecurity and poverty but, alarmingly, by the negligence of the very institutions meant to safeguard it—particularly the health sector. The tragic case of Nicole Adesanya, a five-year-old girl whose brain was permanently damaged at birth due to gross medical negligence in Lagos State, exemplifies the low priority placed on human life by the Nigerian state.
Nicole’s story is distressing yet familiar. Her mother was reportedly kept in prolonged labour for over 24 hours at Somolu General Hospital and later transferred to Island Maternity, where a Caesarean Section (CS) was unnecessarily delayed. This avoidable delay led to asphyxia—lack of oxygen during birth—which caused permanent brain damage. Despite clear medical evidence of negligence, and an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) ruling mandating the Lagos State government to pay ₦10 billion in compensation, justice remains elusive. The government has failed to comply with this ruling, leaving the family in anguish and reinforcing the perception that Nigerian lives are treated cheaply by those in authority.
Legal Duty of Care and the Breach by the State
In medical jurisprudence, healthcare providers owe their patients a duty of care—to act with skill, diligence, and timeliness. When that duty is breached, as in Nicole’s case, and injury results, liability for negligence arises. Under Nigerian law, including the principles of tort, negligence is actionable when three elements are established:
- Duty of care owed by the medical officers;
- Breach of that duty through prolonged neglect or incompetence; and
- Resultant damage, in this case, permanent brain injury.
Here, all three are clearly present. The prolonged labour was an unacceptable deviation from standard medical practice. The delayed surgical intervention violated not just medical ethics but constitutional rights to life and dignity.
The Government’s Non-Compliance: A Further Violation
The refusal of Lagos State to obey the ADR ruling compounds the original negligence. ADR is legally recognized under the High Court of Lagos State (Civil Procedure) Rules, and its outcomes are binding when adopted by the court. Government’s disobedience amounts to contempt of court and reflects a deeper disregard for the rule of law. Such disobedience sends a dangerous message: that the Nigerian state is above accountability, even when the lives of its citizens have been irreparably harmed.
Systemic Negligence in Nigeria’s Healthcare System
Nicole’s case is not an isolated incident; it is symptomatic of systemic decay. Across Nigeria, countless families suffer loss of loved ones due to inadequate facilities, overworked medical staff, and lack of investment in healthcare infrastructure. Public hospitals are notorious for negligence ranging from delayed treatments to misdiagnosis and outright abandonment of patients. These failures are not mere administrative lapses—they are violations of constitutional rights and international human rights obligations under instruments such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which Nigeria has domesticated.
The low priority placed on life is also evident in government budgetary allocations. Year after year, health receives paltry funding, far below the 15% Abuja Declaration target. Instead of investing in equipment, training, and welfare for medical staff, Nigeria continues to export medical professionals while citizens suffer preventable deaths.
The Legal Remedies and the Need for Enforcement
From a legal standpoint, victims of medical negligence are entitled to seek redress through civil litigation, ADR, or even public interest suits. However, the challenge lies not in establishing liability but in enforcing judgments. As seen in Nicole’s case, where government itself is the defendant, the culture of impunity obstructs justice. If a government refuses to obey an ADR ruling, ordinary citizens stand little chance of obtaining effective remedies.
This raises urgent questions about judicial enforcement mechanisms and the need for reforms that will hold government institutions accountable for negligence. The courts must be empowered not only to issue rulings but to compel compliance through garnishee orders, sanctions on defaulting public officials, and greater reliance on international tribunals when local remedies fail.
The Broader Implications for Human Rights
Nicole’s ordeal underscores the larger issue: the commodification of Nigerian lives. In a state where leaders access the best foreign medical care, ordinary citizens are left at the mercy of underfunded hospitals. This selective valuation of human life violates the principle of equality before the law. By failing to prioritize health, the Nigerian state is in effect abdicating its constitutional duty to protect life and dignity.
Conclusion: Advocacy for Social Change
The Adesanya case must be seen not only as a family’s tragedy but as a national indictment. It highlights the urgent need for systemic reform and a change in government attitude toward healthcare and human life. As legal practitioners, we must continue to advocate for stronger patient rights, accountability of medical practitioners, and above all, strict enforcement of judgments against negligent state actors.
The Nigerian state must be reminded that life is sacrosanct. Negligence is not just a medical failure—it is a constitutional violation and a breach of humanity’s most basic obligation: to protect the vulnerable. Until government begins to prioritize health and obey the rule of law, justice will remain a mirage for countless victims like Nicole Adesanya.