NMA MEMBER QUESTIONS ASSOCIATION’S ROLE IN DECLARING NNAMDI KANU FIT FOR TRIAL
Adebayo urges NMA leadership to clarify constitutional authority behind public statement
Abuja, Nigeria – October 19, 2025
The Nigerian Medical Association (NMA) has come under scrutiny following its recent declaration of the illegally detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Mr. Nnamdi Kanu, fit to stand trial.
A senior member of the Association, Dr. Adefolaseye Adebomi Adebayo, has written an open letter to the NMA National President, Prof. Bala Mohammed Audu, demanding clarification on the legal and ethical basis for such a declaration.
In the letter titled “Clarification on the Role of the NMA in Declaring a Patient Fit for Trial – The Case of Mr. Nnamdi Kanu,” Dr. Adebayo, an ENT/Head and Neck Surgeon, expressed concern that the NMA may have overstepped its professional boundaries by publicly commenting on Kanu’s medical condition and fitness for trial. She argued that the Association’s constitution and by-laws do not empower it to issue medical verdicts on behalf of patients or the courts.
According to Dr. Adebayo, the NMA’s constitutional mandate is primarily professional, ethical, and advocacy-based, and does not extend to making medico-legal determinations in criminal proceedings. “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,” she stated.
She reminded the Association that the conventional medico-legal process requires the court to appoint qualified medical experts, often forensic psychiatrists or multidisciplinary panels, to assess the accused person’s physical and mental condition. The findings are then submitted to the court for determination, not released as public declarations through professional associations.
Mazi Nnamdi Kanu was abducted from Kenya in June 2021, in what has been widely condemned as an unlawful act of extraordinary rendition by the Nigerian government. He has since accused the Nigerian government of severely torturing him for eight days in Kenya before his extraordinary rendition to Nigeria, leading to some of his current medical crisis.
Dr. Adebayo’s letter comes amid controversy surrounding the report the Nigerian Medical Association had presented on Thursday, at the Federal High Court in Abuja that Kanu’s medical condition was “not life-threatening” and that he was “fit to continue with the illegal trial.” The claim, which made headlines across several national dailies, has drawn sharp reactions from medical professionals, Kanu’s legal team, and human rights observers, who believe the NMA may have strayed into a politically charged case.
Kanu’s lawyer, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, has also strongly criticized the Nigerian Medical Association’s presentation, describing it as “an ambush” and a deeply questionable intervention. According to him, the medical evaluation that the court ordered on September 26 was never actually conducted. Instead, he revealed that the NMA’s report was based on an informal meeting convened by the Department of State Services (DSS) eight days earlier, on September 18, but was fraudulently backdated to “the 13th of October.”
In her appeal, Dr. Adebayo posed three direct questions to the NMA leadership:
- Under what section of the NMA Constitution or By-Laws does the Association derive authority to constitute or endorse a medical panel for determining a person’s fitness to stand trial?
- Was the panel that examined Mr. Kanu constituted by the court through the NMA, or was it independently presented as an NMA declaration?
- If the latter, how does such a public pronouncement align with the professional and ethical boundaries of the Association?
She urged Prof. Audu to provide an official clarification to “uphold the integrity and independence of the medical profession” and prevent misinterpretation of the Association’s role in sensitive national cases. The surgeon emphasized that transparency from the NMA Secretariat would help protect the credibility of the medical body and reinforce public trust in its impartiality.
Observers note that this open letter has revived debate over the involvement of professional associations in politically charged trials, especially where human rights and due process concerns are at stake. Some legal analysts also question whether such pronouncements, if made without proper authorization, could amount to prejudicial commentary and/or ethical overreach.
The letter concludes with Dr. Adebayo reaffirming her loyalty to the NMA and commending Prof. Audu’s leadership, but insisting that the Association must publicly clarify its stance to avoid being perceived as partisan or politically influenced.
