An ENT/Head and Neck Surgeon, Dr. Adefolaseye Adebomi Adebayo, has interrogated the legitimacy of the recent “green light” issued by the National President of the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA), Prof. Bala Mohammed Audu, to the Federal High Court in Abuja to commence the trial of the detained self-acclaimed leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
How it all began
Mazi Kanu, it could be recalled, has been in detention at the Department of State Security (DSS) facility since June 2021.
The then Nigeria’s Attorney General, Abubakar Malami (SAN), had announced that Kanu was “intercepted” in Kenya and returned to Nigeria.
(In the meantime, though, a Kenyan High Court has declared the rendition of Nnamdi Kanu as lawless and illegal.)
Recently, Kanu had approached multiple authorities, including NMA over health concerns.
He claimed that DSS Doctors treats him as an object, falsify his medical records, and are killing him slowly.
He, therefore, demanding that he be accorded standard medical services, petitioning NMA, the court, and others.
Court’s order
Judge James Omotosho of the Federal High Court obliged him and ordered NMA to make a proper evaluation and ascertain the actual status of Kanu’s health.
Responding to the order, Prof. Audu in his presentation, told the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja that the medical complaints raised by Kanu are not life-threatening.
The medical team concluded that Kanu is fit to stand trial, adding that his ailment is moderate.
Kanu’s counsel immediately rejected the presentation of the NMA president and filed an objection.
Watch a video clip of his counsel, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, speaking to newsmen after the court sitting below:
Dr. Adebayo kicks
In a latest twist to the development, Dr. Adebayo wondered which law permitted Audu to make such declaration in court.
In an open letter to addressed to the NMA president, dated October 18, 2025, Subject: “Clarification on the Role of the NMA in Declaring a Patient Fit for Trial — The Case of Mr. Nnamdi Kanu”, Adebayo ‘requested clarification from the National Secretariat on what constitutional or statutory basis the NMA as a corporate body performed such a function’.
She wrote: “Dear Prof. Audu,
I write to you as a concerned and committed member of our great Association, the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA).
Recent reports in the national media have attributed to the NMA the declaration that Mr. Nnamdi Kanu, currently standing trial in Abuja, has been found fit to stand trial and that his illness is not life-threatening.
While it is understandable that the courts may, from time to time, request professional medical input in cases where an accused person’s fitness to stand trial is in question, I must respectfully request clarification from the National Secretariat on what constitutional or statutory basis the NMA as a corporate body performs such a function.
To the best of my knowledge, and according to the NMA Constitution and By-Laws available to members, our Association’s functions are primarily professional, ethical, and advocacy-based. Nowhere, as far as I can ascertain, is there any provision empowering the Association itself as opposed to independent medical experts or panels appointed by the court to declare a defendant fit or unfit to stand trial.
Traditionally, and in line with standard medico-legal practice, the process has always been as follows:
- When a person’s fitness to stand trial is in question, the court appoints qualified medical experts, often forensic psychiatrists or a multidisciplinary medical board, to assess the individual’s physical and mental condition.
- The panel reports to the court, which then makes the legal determination of fitness to stand trial.
- The NMA, as a professional body, does not issue such declarations in its institutional capacity unless the Association is merely acting as an administrative conduit to nominate experts — in which case, it should be clearly stated that the declaration emanates from individual medical practitioners and not the NMA itself.
NMA Constitution or By-Laws
Given this distinction, I, along with many colleagues, seek your kind clarification on the following points:
- Under what article or section of the NMA Constitution or By-Laws does the Association have the authority to constitute or endorse a medical panel for determining a person’s fitness to stand trial?
- Was the panel that examined Mr. Nnamdi Kanu constituted as a court-appointed body through the NMA, or was it presented publicly as an NMA-declared verdict?
- If the latter, how does this align with the professional and ethical boundaries of our Association as defined by its constitution?
Sir, as you would agree, clarity on this matter is necessary not only to uphold the integrity and independence of our profession but also to ensure that the public correctly understands the role of the NMA in sensitive medico-legal proceedings.
I therefore humbly urge the National Secretariat to issue an official clarification, citing the specific constitutional or statutory framework that underpinned the Association’s involvement in this particular case.
Thank you for your kind attention and continued leadership of our Association. I trust that your office will provide the needed transparency to reassure members and the public alike.”
Audu has yet to respond to Adebayo at the moment of this publication.
