By VITUS OZOKE, PhD

The document titled “Affidavit of Withdrawal of Case,” sworn before the High Court Registry, Abakaliki, on July 13, 2026, is, in substance, an affidavit by one Mr. Tanko Habila Wisdom, father of the late Mary Habila.

The affidavit states that:

Mary Habila died on June 27, 2026, in Uburu, Ebonyi State.

She was a staff member of the David Umahi Federal University of Medical Sciences and had been serving at the Federal Ministry of Works as a personal nurse attached to David Umahi, the Minister of Works.

Following her death, David Umahi requested that an autopsy be conducted.

The family rejects any autopsy and requests that her body and organs remain intact.

The father further asks that the investigation should not proceed.

He requests immediate release of the body for burial.

He states that neither he nor his family suspects any foul play.

He declares that he will not honor any future invitation from the Police or the Court regarding the matter.

He also states that he was neither induced nor coerced into making the affidavit.

That is what Mr. Habila’s affidavit says. But it is what his affidavit does not say that should concern every citizen committed to the rule of law. Under Nigerian law, specifically Section 33 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the right to life is protected, and any unnatural or suspicious death triggers a statutory duty on state authorities to investigate.

Furthermore, the Coroner’s Law of various states, such as Sections 3 and 4 of the Lagos State Coroner Law, places a mandatory obligation on the appropriate authorities to inquire into any sudden, suspicious, or unexplained death. Nigerian courts have repeatedly affirmed that criminal investigations into unexplained deaths cannot be compromised or halted by private affidavits, as recognized in cases such as Igwe v. State (2016) and State v. Ogbuewu (2019).

So, there comes a point where a legal document ceases to answer questions and instead begins to generate them. This affidavit crossed that line. Parents have rights. Families have religious beliefs. Communities have burial traditions. Every one of those deserves respect. But none of them has the legal power to stop a criminal investigation into a potentially unlawful death. That authority rests solely with the State, as only the State has the constitutional mandate to ensure that crimes are investigated and prosecuted in the public interest.

Once a death raises suspicion or remains unexplained, statutory law obliges the State, often through law enforcement agencies or the coroner, to investigate thoroughly regardless of the wishes of the family. The rationale is clear: an unlawful death is not just a private matter, but one that threatens the safety and order of society as a whole. That decision belongs neither to grieving parents nor to political office holders. It belongs to the State.

Once a death occurs under circumstances that are unexplained or reasonably suspicious, it is no longer simply a family matter. It has become a matter of public justice. That is because homicide is an offense against society itself.

No father can pardon a murderer, assuming this is determined to be a homicide. No mother can waive the criminal law. No family can negotiate away the public interest in discovering why one of its members died. That is precisely why criminal prosecutions are ordinarily brought in the name of the State. The victim may have died. The family’s wishes deserve consideration. But the law still has work to do.

Reports surrounding this tragedy have raised questions about the circumstances of Mary Habila’s death. Those questions deserve careful, professional investigation rather than speculation. If investigators encounter circumstances that reasonably suggest an unnatural or suspicious death, standard investigative practice will ordinarily include securing the scene, collecting forensic evidence, interviewing witnesses, and determining whether an autopsy is legally required.

Against that backdrop, the affidavit’s most troubling feature is not the rejection of an autopsy. Families sometimes object to post-mortem examinations for sincere religious or cultural reasons. The truly remarkable part is the attempt to terminate the investigation itself. Why? If there was no foul play, what harm is there in allowing investigators to establish precisely that? If the family genuinely believes nothing criminal occurred, then a competent investigation should only confirm their belief. Justice has nothing to fear from facts. Only falsehood fears investigation.

There is another principle that every first-year criminal law student learns. Attempts to impede an investigation can sometimes become significant in their own right. Whether a particular conduct amounts to obstruction depends on the facts and the applicable law, and only a proper legal process can determine that. For instance, imagine a family member who repeatedly instructs witnesses not to speak to the police or hides evidence relevant to the case; such actions could be interpreted as obstructing justice and might expose the individual to criminal liability regardless of their intentions. For that reason, lawyers generally advise clients to cooperate with lawful investigations while preserving all their legal rights, rather than attempting to shut an investigation down altogether.

And if I were the lawyer, giving counsel to Mr. Habila, I would advise him to tread carefully before he becomes the subject of investigation himself. He can reject an autopsy on whatever religious or cultural grounds, but he cannot demand the discontinuation of a possible criminal investigation. And he cannot refuse to cooperate with State detectives. If he does, he might be treated as a possible accomplice and charged with obstruction of justice.

It is important to note that lawyers have ethical duties when advising clients in situations like this. A lawyer is professionally obligated to give honest advice about the law, to avoid facilitating any act that could obstruct justice, and to ensure that their guidance promotes both their client’s interests and respect for the justice system. Advising a client to comply with lawful investigations is not only prudent but also a matter of professional ethics. Encouraging or assisting a client in hindering a lawful criminal inquiry could constitute professional misconduct and may expose the lawyer to disciplinary action.

This is why Mr. Habila’s affidavit must be withdrawn, amended, and refiled to remove paragraphs regarding his demand that the investigation not proceed and his threat not to honor any future invitation from the Police or the Court regarding the matter.

In a civilized criminal justice system, given that affidavit, Mr. Habila will have many uncomfortable questions to answer, regardless of his innocence. His financial records will be thoroughly investigated for any uncommon deposit since the incident. His known residences would have been thoroughly searched by now. His phones and computers will be subject to forensic examination. Not just him, his relatives also.

There might even need to be a DNA paternity test to confirm that Mr. Habila is the deceased’s biological father. In most cases, biological parents do not file affidavits asking that the investigation into the unexplained death of their child not proceed. The circumstances surrounding the affidavit therefore may warrant further objective scrutiny. The legal strategy adopted in this situation could be seen to raise questions about professional judgment and the responsibilities owed by legal counsel.

From a defense perspective, Mr. Habila’s affidavit presents a strategic puzzle. Whatever its intention, it risks shifting public attention away from the circumstances of Mary Habila’s death and toward the effort to halt further inquiry. That is unfortunate. The focus should remain where it belongs: How did a healthy 26-year-old woman die? What happened? Who saw her last? What does forensic evidence reveal? What do the medical findings show? Every answer should come from evidence – not assumptions, rumors, or affidavits.

Perhaps the saddest aspect of this episode is that the central figure can no longer speak. Mary Habila has no voice. The criminal justice system is supposed to speak for her. That is why homicide investigations do not depend upon the wishes of relatives. The dead cannot retain counsel. The dead cannot file lawsuits. The dead cannot demand justice. The State does so on their behalf. An affidavit cannot extinguish that obligation. David Umahi and his lawyers will do themselves some good by being the ones who move to prevent Mr. Habila’s affidavit from being determinative.

If this case ends because an investigation is abandoned without adequately resolving the circumstances of Mary Habila’s death, Nigeria will have failed not only one young woman but also the principle that every unexplained death deserves a thorough, independent, and professional investigation.

This should not become known as the affidavit that buried an investigation. It should become the affidavit that reminded investigators why they must continue. Because justice is not withdrawn by affidavit. And Mary Habila deserves far more than a document asking that the search for truth should stop. She deserves the truth itself.

•Dr. Vitus Ozoke is a lawyer, human rights activist, and public affairs analyst based in the United States. He writes on politics, governance, and the moral costs of leadership failure in Africa.

Update news