Children have no capacity to ask what killed their parents – Lulu-Briggs widow

The High Court in Accra has directed Mrs Seinye Lulu-Briggs, widow of the late Nigerian philanthropist, High Chief Olu Benson Lulu-Briggs, alleged to have died shortly on arrival at the Kotoka International Airport on December 27, 2018, to serve her stepson, Chief Dumo Lulu-Briggs with her certiorari application challenging a magistrate court’s jurisdiction to order an inquest into her husband’s death.

The court consequently adjourned the case to November 20, 2019.

Seinye wants the court to restrain the Kaneshie Magistrate Court 2 from proceeding with the inquest because, according to her, it lacks territorial jurisdiction as the late Olu Lulu-Briggs died in a different district.

Again, she says the Magistrate in granting the ex-parte application for an inquest, proved biased against her as she only listened to Dumo, who along with some of his siblings, insist they want to know what killed their father.

Mrs Seinye Lulu-Briggs, who filed the process on her own behalf and on behalf of her children, however, argues in her affidavit in support of her application that all lawful documents point to her late husband dying from natural causes and thus an inquest is needless. She also says under the law, children of a deceased person do not have the capacity to request the Coroner to conduct an inquest into the death of the deceased.

Below are the full pleadings of the widow.

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ON NOTICE TO INVOKE THE SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT FOR ORDERS OF CERTIORARI & PROHIBITION DIRECTED AT THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KANESHIE DISTRICT COURT 2

I, Seinye Lulu-Briggs, of No. 11, Forces Avenue, Port Harcourt, Nigeria, do make oath and say as follows:

1. That I am the 1st Applicant and deponent to this affidavit.

2. That I have the consent and the authority of all the Applicants to depose to this affidavit on our collective behalf in support of this application.

3. That in deposing to this affidavit, unless otherwise stated, I aver to facts and matters that are either within my personal knowledge and belief or which are based on information provided to me by our Counsel which I believe to be true.

4. That at the hearing of this application, our Counsel shall seek leave of this Honourable Court to refer to all processes filed in this matter.

5. That I am the widow of the late High Chief (Dr) Olu Benson Lulu-Briggs ("my late husband") with whom I had children.

6. That the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Applicants are my children and we are invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court for orders of certiorari and prohibition in our joint behalf and on behalf of my son lyowuna Lulu-Briggs who is a minor.

7. That my late husband and I, together with his pastor, personal nurse, and household staff, travelled to Accra from Port Harcourt in Nigeria for holidays on 27th December 2018.

8. That when we arrived at the Kotoka International Airport, and after alighting from the aircraft, my late husband's personal nurse discovered that he was weak after checking his pulse. So, my late husband was rushed to the Airport Clinic where he was treated and later pronounced dead.

9. That the Medical Officer of the Airport Clinic issued a Medical Certificate of Cause of Death on 27th December 2018 certifying that the cause of my late husband's death was cardiac arrest due to Parkinson's disease which he had been suffering from for several years. A copy of the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death is attached to this affidavit and marked EXHIBIT SL 1.
Page 4 of 14

10. That the Registrar of Birth and Deaths on 31st December 2018 issued a Certified Copy of Entry in Register of Deaths (the "Death Certificate") which also indicated that the cause of my late husband's death was cardiac arrest. A copy of the certificate is attached to this affidavit and marked EXHIBIT SL 2.

11. That I subsequently informed the members of my late husband's family that he had passed away and, with their consent and concurrence, I prepared for the mortal remains of my late husband to be repatriated to Nigeria.

12. That while I made these arrangements, the mortal remains were deposited at the Transitions Funeral Home mortuary for preservation.

13. That even though I applied for and obtained the requisite permits and approvals to repatriate the mortal remains of my late husband to Nigeria, the mortal remains are still in Ghana due to the numerous controversies engineered by my stepson, Dumo Lulu-Briggs, (the "Interested Party") and some of his siblings.

14. That when the Interested Party asked the Medical Officer of the Airport Clinic about the cause of my late husband's death on 11th June 2019, a Medical Report was issued to him explaining the circumstances under which my late husband passed away. A copy of the Medical Report is attached to this affidavit and marked EXHIBIT SL 3.

15. That the Medical Report stated that my late husband was rushed to the Airport Clinic in an unconscious state after the Clinic's Ambulance picked him up from the tarmac of the Kotoka International Airport and that afterwards, cardiorespiratory resuscitation (CPR) was unsuccessfully initiated to revive him. So, he was confirmed clinically dead resulting from cardiac arrest due to Parkinson's disease.

16. That in spite of the clarity of the Medical Report and the Medical Cause of Death Certificate, the Interested Party nevertheless petitioned the Director-General of the Criminal Investigations Department and requested that the Police procure a Coroner's inquiry into the death of my late husband.

17. That the Interested Party alleged in his petition that an inquest was necessary because, according to him, my desire to give my husband a befitting and prompt burial was suspicious. A copy of the petition is attached to this affidavit and marked EXHIBIT SL 4.

18. That the Ghana Police Service notified the District Magistrate, Kaneshie District Court 2 (the "Coroner") that my late husband died after being rushed to the Airport Clinic when it was discovered that he was unwell and therefore, requested for the instructions of the Coroner.

19. That the Ghana Police Service further explained that my late husband at the time of his death was 88 years old and had been sick of hypertension and Parkinson disease.

20. That the Ghana Police Service while maintaining that there was no likelihood of someone being charged in connection with the death of my late husband also informed the Coroner that some of my late husband's children alleged that he died a violent or unnatural death or a death of which the cause was unknown. A copy of the Police Report to the Coroner is attached to this affidavit and marked EXHIBIT SL 5.

21. That on 12th July 2019, the Coroner ordered the pathologist of the 37 Military Hospital to conduct a post-mortem examination on the mortal remain of my late husband. A copy of the order is attached to this affidavit and marked EXHIBIT SL 6.

22. That on 12th July 2019, I commenced a suit in the High Court intituled Seinye Lulu-Briggs v. Chief Dumo Lulu-Briggs Suit No. GJ/1601/ 0310/2019 against the Interested Party for a declaration that I am the rightful person to take custody of the mortal remains of my late husband and, for interim orders to protect that right/interest. A copy of the writ of summons and statement of claim is attached to this affidavit and marked EXHIBIT SL 7.

23. That subsequently on 18th July 2019, the High Court by a consent order issued directions for conducting the autopsy on the mortal remains of my late husband. A copy of the consent order and the terms of the order are attached to this affidavit and marked EXHIBIT SL 8 series.

24. That in accordance with the order of the High Court, on 19th July 2019 and the Coroner's instructions, the mortal remains of my late husband were submitted to the 37 Military Hospital for the autopsy to be conducted.

25. That while we waited for the post-mortem report, the Interested Party filed in the District Court an ex parte application allegedly to bring further information to the attention of the Coroner. However, in the affidavit in support of the motion, the Interested Party prayed that an inquest is carried out into the death of my late husband.

26. That contrary to the clear terms of the Medical Report, the Interested Party falsely asserted that my late husband died outside the Airport Clinic relying on the same Medical Report. A copy of the ex parte application filed by the Interested Party is attached to this affidavit and marked EXHIBIT SL 9.

27. That on 6th September 2019, Counsel for the Interested Party during the hearing of the motion to bring information to the Coroner's attention, prayed for an inquest into the death of the of my late husband. A copy of the proceedings is attached to this affidavit and marked EXHIBIT SL 10.

28. That the Coroner, thereafter, ordered an inquest to be carried out into the death of my late husband claiming that she had reasonable cause to believe that my late husband did not die a natural death. A copy of the order is attached to this affidavit and marked EXHIBIT SL 11.

29. That based on the foregoing facts, we have instituted the instant proceedings for orders of certiorari and prohibition against the Coroner.

LACK OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
30. That the Coroner in the present matter is the District Magistrate who presides over the Kaneshie District Court 2 which is within the Accra Metropolitan District.

31. That my late husband's death occurred at the Airport Clinic which is within the La Dadekotopon Municipal District and not the Accra Metropolitan District.

32. That I am advised by Counsel and I believe same to be true that a Coroner only has jurisdiction over deaths that occurred in the district in which the Coroner has been appointed as a District Magistrate.

33. That I am advised by Counsel and I believe same to be true that, the Coroner's jurisdiction in the instant case pertains only to deaths which occurred within the Accra Metropolitan District.

34. That I am advised by Counsel and I believe same to be true that, since my late husband passed away at the Airport Clinic, which is within the La Dadekotopon Municipal District, the Coroner has no jurisdiction to order an inquest in the matter of his death.

35. That I am advised by Counsel and I believe same to be true that, the Coroner, therefore, lacks the territorial jurisdiction to order for an inquest to be conducted.

CORONER'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PRECONDITIONS FOR EXERCISING JURISDICTION TO ORDER AN INQUEST
36. That I am advised by Counsel and believe same to be true that the Coroner lacked jurisdiction to order for an inquest to be conducted into the death of my late husband because the statutory preconditions for exercising her jurisdiction had not been satisfied.

37. That I am advised by Counsel and I believe same to be true that the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court stipulates that the coroner does not have the jurisdiction to order an inquest when the cause of death is known.

38. That I am advised by Counsel and I believe same to be true that the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death, the Death Certificate, and the Medical Report all concluded that my late husband, who at the time of death was 88 years old, died from a cardiac arrest due to his Parkinson's disease.

39. That these documents were available to the Coroner before she ordered the inquest into the death of my late husband.

40. That I am advised by Counsel and I believe same to be true that because these documents are official documents from independent sources, they enjoy a presumption of regularity and the unsubstantiated allegations of the Interested Party cannot form a basis to rebut them.

41. That the documents available to the Coroner, clearly indicate that the cause of my late husband's death was cardiac arrest and his Parkinson's disease.

42. That since the Coroner did not have reasonable cause to suspect that my late husband did not die of natural causes, she lacked jurisdiction to order an inquest into his death.

PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETY/UNFAIRNESS
43. That I am advised by Counsel and I believe same to be true that, the Coroner breached the Wednesbury principles and acted illegally, irrationally, and procedurally improperly when she admitted and relied on prejudicial ex parte evidence from the Interested Party as her basis for ordering the inquest into the death of my late husband.

44. That I am advised by Counsel and I believe same to be true that because an inquest is a quasi-judicial proceeding, the mind of a Coroner prior to the inquest and throughout the inquest proceedings must be independent and not unduly prejudiced.

45. That I am advised by Counsel and I believe same to be true that the Coroner's Act, 1960 (Act 18) stipulates that the Coroner can only conduct an evidentiary hearing after a decision to conduct an inquest and not before the decision to conduct an inquest.

46. That I am advised by Counsel and I believe same to be true that in so far as the Police had commenced the request for an autopsy, it was improper for the Coroner to admit evidence from the Interested Party in the absence of all interested parties.

47. That I am advised by Counsel and I believe same to be true that, when an autopsy has been conducted, the proper and fair procedure is for the Coroner to rely on the contents of the autopsy report to determine whether to order an inquest.

48. That it is clear that in spite of the clear evidence before the Coroner which indicated the cause of my late husband's death, the Coroner relied on the prejudicial testimony and evidence of the Interested Party to order an inquest when it was completely unnecessary to do so.

49. That I am further advised by Counsel and I believe same to be true that under the law children of a deceased person do not have the capacity to request the Coroner to conduct an inquest into the death of the deceased.

50. That it was, therefore, unlawful for the Coroner to order an inquest into the death of my late husband based on the ex parte motion and supporting affidavit of the Interested Party.

51. That the Police Report already indicated to the Coroner that though from the intelligence they gathered, my late husband's death was due to his pre¬-existing illness, some children (including the Interested Party) suggested that he died a violent or unnatural death or a death which the cause was unknown.

52. That in the circumstances, it was palpably clear that the conduct of the Interested Party was intended to fuel his ulterior motives. Therefore, the Coroner breached her duty to be fair when she granted the Interested Party ex parte audience in the absence of all the interested parties.

53. That being aggrieved by the order of the Coroner on 6th September 2019 to conduct an inquest into the death of my late husband, the Applicants have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court for orders in the nature of certiorari and prohibition directed to the Coroner for the purpose of quashing her order to conduct the inquest and to prohibit her from conducting the said inquest.

WHEREFORE I swear to this affidavit in good faith.