Investigation: Why Barrister Hamza Nuhu Dantani should apologize to UMTH over his claims; his father’s case—”Prostate Cancer at Stage Four”—was a hopeless situation despite the fact that he was attended to by one of the best urologists.

Investigation: Why Barrister Hamza Nuhu Dantani should apologize to UMTH over his claims; his father’s case—”Prostate Cancer at Stage Four”—was a hopeless situation despite the fact that he was attended to by one of the best urologists.

By: Dr. James Bwala

The recent public allegations made by Barrister Hamza Nuhu Dantani against the University of Maiduguri Teaching Hospital (UMTH) concerning the treatment of his late father have stirred significant controversy and raised critical questions about professional conduct, medical ethics, and the responsibilities of legal practitioners in public discourse. While empathy for the loss of a family member is natural, it is vital that claims made in the public domain, especially those affecting reputable institutions, are founded on verified facts and conveyed with professionalism. After thorough investigation and engagement with UMTH officials and medical experts, it becomes evident that Barrister Dantani’s assertions lack merit and, more importantly, that his conduct in this matter falls short of the standards expected from a legal professional. Consequently, Barrister Hamza Nuhu Dantani should publicly apologize to UMTH for the unsubstantiated nature of his claims and the undue damage inflicted upon the institution’s reputation.

To appreciate fully why an apology is necessary, one must first understand the medical circumstances surrounding the late Alhaji Dantani’s admission to UMTH. Medical records and testimonies indicate that the elder Dantani was admitted at an advanced stage of prostate cancer—specifically stage four—in February 2026. This is a critical point in the disease’s progression wherein the cancer has metastasized extensively, generally rendering curative treatment unattainable regardless of the quality of care provided. Globally, stage four prostate cancer presents a near-hopeless prognosis, demanding palliative rather than curative efforts to maximize quality of life. It is misleading, therefore, to interpret the outcome as resultant from negligence or substandard care following Alhaji Dantani’s demise on March 31, 2026.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/the-complex-reality-of-healthcare-a-perspective-on-the-university-of-maiduguri-teaching-hospital-and-the-loss-experienced-by-barrister-nuhu-dantani-hamza/

My findings also revealed that the late patient’s care was overseen by Professor Hassan Dogo, a urologist of outstanding repute both within and beyond Nigerian medical circles. Professor Dogo’s involvement underscores the level of expertise committed to the patient’s management. The hospital’s Chief Medical Director, Professor Ahmed Ahidjo, personally intervened to ensure that the Dantani family had access to the best possible care, even offering private quarters within the hospital should general wards be unavailable. This proactive and compassionate response demonstrates the hospital’s commitment to patient welfare and contradicts any insinuations of neglect or unprofessionalism.

The decision by Barrister Dantani to publicly air grievances on social media and through petitions before fully engaging with hospital authorities exemplifies unprofessional conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. As an officer of the court, a barrister bears the responsibility not only to uphold the law but also to maintain decorum and integrity in all public interactions. Recklessly disseminating claims without validation jeopardizes the credibility of the legal profession and undermines public trust in medical institutions that serve critical societal needs. In this instance, such premature public accusations inflicted reputational harm on UMTH, an institution known for its high standards and dedicated service.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/the-complex-reality-of-healthcare-a-perspective-on-the-university-of-maiduguri-teaching-hospital-and-the-loss-experienced-by-barrister-nuhu-dantani-hamza/

In addition to institutional harm, the manner in which Barrister Dantani handled the situation reflects poorly on the principles of due diligence and respectful dialogue. Rather than pursuing direct communication with UMTH management to clarify concerns, he resorted to externalizing grievances, thereby exacerbating tensions. The fact that members of the Dantani family subsequently contacted the hospital to express regret over the son’s approach confirms that the claims were disproportionately escalated. This sequence of events highlights the need for measured responses grounded in factual understanding, especially when involving matters as sensitive as terminal illness.

It is also essential to contextualize the nature of cancer prognosis within the public discourse. Awareness that advanced-stage cancers often defy medical intervention is critical in mitigating misplaced blame on healthcare providers. By advancing inaccurate narratives, public figures risk fostering distrust in healthcare systems, potentially discouraging others from seeking timely medical attention. Barrister Dantani, equipped with professional training and access to legal and investigative resources, had an obligation to ascertain the veracity of the situation before turning to public condemnation.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/the-complex-reality-of-healthcare-a-perspective-on-the-university-of-maiduguri-teaching-hospital-and-the-loss-experienced-by-barrister-nuhu-dantani-hamza/

Some people out there might argue that the family’s grief justified Barrister Dantani’s public expressions or that highlighting perceived gaps in patient care could promote systemic improvements. While grief is deeply personal and valid, it does not justify undermining established protocols for dispute resolution or tarnishing reputations without substantiation. Constructive criticism aimed at improving health services is best channeled through official and collaborative frameworks rather than adversarial and public confrontations lacking evidence. Moreover, in this case, available information strongly suggests that the hospital maintained high standards of care, negating the premise for such allegations.

I believe the intersection of professional responsibility, respect for institutional integrity, and empathetic understanding of medical realities informs the necessity for Barrister Hamza Nuhu Dantani to issue an unambiguous apology to UMTH. His premature and unfounded public criticisms unfairly discredited the hospital, disregarding the complex and tragic nature of late-stage prostate cancer and the commendable efforts of its medical staff. An apology would not only restore dignity to UMTH but also reaffirm the ethical standards expected of legal practitioners. Moving forward, this episode should serve as a reminder of the importance of prudence, respect, and factual accuracy in public discourse—especially when lives and legacies are involved. Only through such conscientious conduct can professional integrity and public trust be preserved for the benefit of society at large. This is my take following the unfortunate incident. 

* James Bwala, PhD, writes from Abuja.

Investigation: Why Barrister Hamza Nuhu Dantani should apologize to UMTH over his claims; his father’s case—”Prostate Cancer at Stage Four”—was a hopeless situation despite the fact that he was attended to by one of the best urologists.