The attempt made by Limpopo Health MEC, Dr. Phophi Ramathuba, to quash an inquiry into
her remarks directed at a Zimbabwean patient has been dismissed by the court, with costs.
The Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) had scheduled a disciplinary
inquiry to investigate the complaints arising from the widely broadcasted
conversation that took place when she visited Bela Bela Hospital last year.
Although the exact nature of the complaints was not detailed in Judge Anthony Millar's judgment,
it is publicly known that she accused the patient of burdening the provincial health system,
stating, "You are killing my health system. It's unfair."
Ramathuba had applied for an interdict in two parts, labeled Part A and Part B. Part A sought
to temporarily halt the proceedings until Part B, a review application, could be submitted.
In Part B, she intended to challenge the constitutionality,
lawfulness, and validity of the HPCSA's decision issued on February 9, 2023,
while also asserting that the HPCSA lacked jurisdiction over her actions as an MEC.
Only Part A was considered by Judge Millar,
who delivered his ruling on Friday. He noted that numerous complaints had been
filed against Ramathuba with the HPCSA as a result of the conversation. Ramathuba,
both in her capacity as the MEC for Health and as a medical practitioner, disputed these complaints.
Judge Millar explained the two-stage complaints procedure of the HPCSA. The
preliminary inquiry is the first stage, which may lead to the resolution of the
complaint. If not resolved, it proceeds to a formal inquiry.
According to the judge, a preliminary committee convened at the end of January
to examine the complaints. The committee found Ramathuba guilty of unprofessional conduct,
although it deemed it a minor offense and suggested cautioning her for
unprofessional behavior since she had raised her voice at a vulnerable patient's bedside.
The HPCSA communicated to Ramathuba that accepting this penalty would not result
in a conviction or reflect negatively on her record. The matter would be considered
closed. However, Ramathuba refused to accept the finding and challenged
the jurisdiction of the HPCSA in a letter sent in February.
Disagreeing with her assertions, the HPCSA scheduled formal hearing dates for the inquiry.
Ramathuba expressed her unwillingness to attend the inquiry or allow it to proceed,
claiming that her remarks were made in her capacity as an MEC, not as a medical practitioner.
Judge Millar emphasized that the roles of holding a political office and being a
registered medical practitioner were not mutually exclusive. He regarded the claim that conduct is
determined by the "hat" a person wears at a given time as contrived and self-serving,
stating that it is inconsistent with constitutional values and the law.
Since Ramathuba remained registered with the HPCSA, she could not evade its jurisdiction.
The judge noted that if she had deregistered, the situation would have been different. As she
refused to accept the preliminary committee's finding, the matter would now proceed before a
different committee, affording her the opportunity to raise any challenges during the inquiry.
Judge Millar dismissed Ramathuba's application and ordered her to pay the HPCSA's costs.
Thanks for watching. Please comment, like, share and subscribe.