A member of the Nigerian Medical Association, NMA, Dr. Adefolaseye Adebomi Adebayo, an ENT/Head & Neck Surgeon, has faulted the association for declaring detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, fit to stand trial in the ongoing terrorism case brought against him by the Federal Government.
A team set up by the NMA, following the directive of trial judge Justice James Omotosho of the Abuja Federal High Court, had declared Kanu fit to stand trial.
The development followed Kanu’s request that he should be treated at the National Hospital, rather than the facility of the Department of State Services, DSS, which he said had not been able to handle his health challenges.
The NMA panel, in its report, submitted to the court on October 13 by the prosecution team led by Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, stated that Kanu’s ailment is not life-threatening and as such, his trial should continue.
However, in a statement addressed to NMA National President, Prof. Bala Mohammed Audu, with the subject, ‘Clarification on the Role of the NMA in Declaring a Patient Fit for Trial — The Case of Mr. Nnamdi Kanu’, Adebayo, a surgeon, faulted the role played by the NMA panel.
Adebayo noted that the NMA has no powers to declare a fit or unfit trial.
Addressing the NMA President, Adebayo said, “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.”
The surgeon went ahead to spell out the traditional process for such interventions, in line with standard medico-legal practice.
“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.”
Adebayo urged the NMA National President to provide clarification on some details, including: “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?”
According to Adebayo, “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”.
He therefore urged the NMA National Secretariat to issue an official clarification, citing the specific constitutional or statutory framework that underpinned the association’s involvement in Nnamdi Kanu’s case.
