Medical Litigation in Nigeria: The Case for Professional Review First

Medical Litigation in Nigeria: Why Professional Review Should Ordinarily Precede Criminal Prosecution in Clinical Cases

There is growing concern within Nigeria’s health sector about the increasing tendency for medical disputes to first go to the police, coroner’s courts, or criminal courts before a full professional review by the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN). Under the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act, the MDCN’s Investigation Panel is the statutory body empowered to investigate allegations that a registered practitioner has misbehaved in a professional respect, while the Disciplinary Tribunal determines referred disciplinary cases (Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria, n.d.; Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria, 2004).

The concern is not that doctors should be above the law. It is that clinical judgment, complications, causation, emergency decision-making, and standard-of-care questions are technically complex matters. When these questions are converted too quickly into criminal allegations without prior expert review, the risk of error is high. Medicine is not an exact science, and not every adverse outcome is negligence; likewise, not every negligent act is automatically criminal. That is precisely why professional investigation exists.

Documented examples of court-first medical litigation in Nigeria

One documented example is the case of Dr. Shehu Abdullahi Muhammad. Public reporting states that the matter had already gone through the Kano State High Court, where he was found guilty, before the Court of Appeal in Kaduna acquitted him and suggested that the matter be brought before the medical council for proper trial (Omolaoye, 2020). This is therefore a clear example of court-first litigation followed by professional review. However, the open sources reviewed for this document do not clearly show a later MDCN exoneration on the same facts, so no such claim is made here.

Another example is the case involving Dr. Ejike Orji and Excel Medical Centre in Lagos. Public reporting shows that the matter became a criminal prosecution in the Lagos State High Court in 2019, where Dr. Orji and his wife were arraigned for causing grievous harm, recklessness, and negligence in the treatment of a teenage patient (Omojuyigbe, 2019). Reporting in 2023 further shows that Dr. Orji was convicted and sentenced for negligence and endangering the life of the patient, while his wife had earlier been discharged and acquitted on the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions (The Eagle Online, 2023).

There are also medical-negligence disputes that proceeded through the ordinary civil courts without any publicly documented prior MDCN-first process. In Ojo v. Gharoro, the Supreme Court dealt with a negligence claim arising from surgery after a broken needle was left in the patient’s abdomen; the Court ultimately found that negligence was not proved (Nigerian Law Forum, n.d.-a). In University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital v. Theresa Akilo, the Court of Appeal treated the matter as a tort-based medical-negligence claim. It held that the State High Court had jurisdiction to hear it (Nigerian Law Forum, n.d.-b).

Why this trend matters for medical practice

• First, it encourages defensive medicine. Survey evidence shows that criminal punishment and complaint pressure can make doctors more likely to prescribe overtreatments, avoid risky cases, and practise more defensively rather than more thoughtfully (Lee, 2019; Bourne et al., 2015).

• Second, it can damage the mental health and professional confidence of practitioners. Large survey and review data link complaint procedures and litigation exposure with depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, burnout, shame, anger, and long-lasting psychological distress, especially when doctors feel publicly treated as guilty before the facts are clinically resolved (Bourne et al., 2015; Madan et al., 2024).

• Third, it can worsen fear, hostility, and workplace insecurity. Nigerian reporting shows that allegations following patient deaths frequently trigger assaults on doctors and other health workers, in a system already facing manpower shortages (The Guardian Nigeria News, 2023).

• Fourth, it may distort clinical decision-making and reduce willingness to manage high-risk patients or emergencies. When clinicians fear premature criminalisation, they may over-investigate, over-refer, or avoid complex cases, all of which can increase cost and delay care (Lee, 2019; Bourne et al., 2015).

Position

Stakeholders, including the Nigerian Medical Association, the MDCN, prosecutors, hospital managements, and the courts, should consider a clearer institutional norm: where the core complaint is clinical judgment, standard of care, complications, or causation, professional medical review should ordinarily come first before criminal prosecution is pursued, except in cases that plainly involve intentional violence, sexual offences, forgery, concealment, or conduct obviously outside legitimate clinical care.

A patient-centred and fair system should protect genuine victims of malpractice while also protecting clinicians from premature criminalisation in matters that require expert medical appraisal. An expert review first does not eliminate accountability. It improves the quality, fairness, and credibility of accountability.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author, Zara Melvin, and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Legit.ng.

[Sponsored]

Source: Legit.ng