The South African state, its politicians and bureaucrats are
corrupt. The ANC is terminally, one hundred percent corrupt. The other
governing party, DA in Western Cape and Cape Town, is on the road there. The
difference between them is only in scale.
The DA, supporters and media claim they’re good governors. But
a cursory inspection of their record reveals it’s a lie. It’s based only on
them purportedly being good financial administrators. But that’s only one
aspect of good governance. The bar to obtain a financially unqualified audit is
very low. Managers must be incorrigibly incompetent and corrupt for
organisations to get one.
South Africa, i.e. the ANC-ruled state, consistently fails
in all areas of governance and DA-run Cape Town and Western Cape in all except
finance. Specifically, ethics, legal compliance, accountability and resource
optimisation are poor to dismal.
Here are examples of corruption and criminality in the
Western Cape government. The media concentrate on ANC corruption and are unwilling
to report DA malfeasance particularly when it concerned their darling, former
Western Cape premier Helen Zille, now reborn as the political head of the
neo-rightwing DA.
Western Cape Health
Department protects negligent doctor
Some years ago WCHD and Groote Schuur Hospital management
chief medical superintendent Peter Mitchell, outpatients director Tunc
Numanoglu, orthopaedics unit head Mike Solomons and medico-legal heads David
Bass and Alfredo Rossi shielded visiting British surgical registrar Christopher
Hobbs after he misdiagnosed and mistreated a routine injury that contributed to
permanent damage to a patient, this writer.
Hobbs was not registered with the Health Professions Council of South
Africa (HPCSA), a legal requirement.
He continued working at the hospital. Groote Schuur and WCHD refused to account for
his conduct; they harassed the patient and did not cooperate with the
subsequent police investigation. Three
months later and one day after he left the country, Solomons penned a whitewash
report gaslighting the patient.
That Hobbs was negligent was not in dispute. Other doctors
including the late emeritus professor Martin Singer confirmed his misdiagnosis
which required remedial surgery and a year’s follow-up care. WCHD knew about
his unlicensed state from his personnel file and HPCSA but Mitchell insisted he
had been registered.
Bass was the architect of their strategy to obstruct and
allow Hobbs to flee. Bass lied on numerous occasions in official statements including
egregiously WCHD had no control over doctors in its employ. The matter was reported to head of health
Craig Househam and health MEC who did nothing.
HPCSA declined to charge anyone saying it was “politically
sensitive”. The police had to be pressurised to open a case, describing it as a
“nuisance”. The Western Cape provincial
commissioner dismissed complaints about poor service, more concerned about the
reputations of the officers involved.
So the open and shut case took almost a year to reach the
National Prosecutions Authority’s (NPA) Cape Town office, the director of
public prosecutions (DPP). For their part, DPP said there was “no criminal case
[sic]” despite prima facie evidence. When
later the patient presented a legal opinion on the illegality of Hobbs’
actions, unrepentant and aggressive, they stated “it was unfair to Hobbs [sic]” to prosecute him.
By then Hobbs was long back in England. DPP said they would
apply for a bench warrant for his arrest but did not. Had the warrant been
issued, he would have been declared a fugitive and arrested had he entered
South Africa. This is further proof of
NPA’s attitude to government criminality.
WCHD’s doctors, officers, political heads and especially
David Bass were mendacious, unethical and corrupt – they irregularly acted to
benefit another, conspired in fraud and violated regulations of the Health
Professions Act and WCHD. They ought to have been prosecuted by HPCSA, DPP or
both but nothing ever touches people like them.
Hobbs went on to have a successful career in Portsmouth,
England. The patient reported him to Britain’s
General Medical Council. They said there was wrongdoing but declined to take it
further because the offenses happened outside its jurisdiction, but because of
its seriousness, made a permanent note in his record. It was a kind of justice
compared to none the patient received from purported defenders of the
constitution NPA, HPCSA, SAPS and government.
This is typical for South Africa.
Western Cape Health
Department protects doctors accused of culpable homicide; no action from
director of public prosecution and court
An ongoing case illustrates endemic corruption, illegality
and unethical conduct among state employees and institutions and that nothing
ever changes. Then as now NPA won’t
prosecute corruption, politically sensitive cases and government
officials.
Groote Schuur’s Trauma Centre head Andrew Nicol and doctors
Ahmed Al Sayari, Marcelle Crowther, Mohammed Mayet, Mikhail Botha, hospital CEO
Bhavna Patel and WCHD head Beth Engelbrecht were accused of assault, culpable
homicide, fraud, violations of national and provincial health laws in causing
the death of 91 year-old patient. Effectively, they euthanized her rather than
provide high care.
That morning a doctor told the family the patient did not
deserve an ICU bed because she was elderly.
This was a unit directive because there is no guideline or law that
prevents a patient receiving care on the basis of age, gender, race or
religious belief. Since there was no medical reason, it was discriminatory and
unconstitutional.
As the family saw, the directive – euthanasia, cessation of
treatment, violation of bodily integrity and informed consent, homicide, whatever
– did not apply to other patients in the unit.
It had nothing to do with medical or humanitarian reasons but to free
beds for what they considered
deserving cases like alcohol and self-inflicted trauma admitted to South
African hospitals.
That day the Trauma Centre was not excessively busy and
there were free beds. There was no
health emergency or resource crisis
that forced staff to make difficult decisions about who to treat. The patient was dispensable solely because of age and not worth
their time as a state patient.
Nevertheless, as the day progressed, doctors said the
patient was improving, “looking better”.
Therefore, she was not “terminal” as they afterwards claimed, their
defence being she died of age-related natural causes. Her medical record too did not indicate
prognosis was worsening.
The patient, a former teacher and whose late husband fought
in World War 2, did not die naturally but the result of gross negligence,
violation of health regulations at many levels and assault which is the absence
of informed consent and violation of body integrity (Constitution section
12(2), National Health Act, Gauteng High Court Castel v De Greef).
Like with Hobbs, WCHD hierarchy Nicol, Patel and Engelbrecht
were obstructive, bullying and committed fraud to cover up. They refused to investigate as they must under
departmental policy and national health laws. They deflected blame onto the
family to make them go away.
Western Cape premier Helen Zille, who like DA claim they’re
against corruption, refused to investigate as she had to do as ultimate head of
WCHD and stated her a priori
confidence in Engelbrecht et al. (Health
MEC Nomafrench Mbombo, the DA’s token black cosmetic appointee, ignored the
family’s appeals and played no part.)
Zille went further and illegally interfered in the police’s
and DPP’s pro forma “criminal investigation”.
The police and prosecutor advocate Nadia Ajam gave Zille’s
representative, Western Cape government advocate J Gerber,
who boasted he used his personal influence with DPP, information that ought to
have been confidential. Worse, it was given to the accused: Western Cape
government officers.
First, all communication about cases with DPP is through its
chief clerk, not individual staff. So Zille and officers got preferential
treatment which is denied victims and public for whom the DPP is pro forma
advocate. Equality before the law does not apply as NPA practises it.
Second, it’s unheard of for the complainant, accused or
anyone to be given information during the investigation except basic status
reports because it may hinder or compromise the investigation.
Third, DPP and SAPS did not ask Gerber/Zille what their political interest in the investigation
was which was reason enough to reject their attempts.
Fourth, it’s astounding and indicative of conspiracy to
defeat justice that they gave them information knowing government officers were accused.
Zille’s, DPP’s and police’s conduct was unethical,
incompetent and corrupt.
However, it’s a given in the context that NPA (and SAPS) is subject to
political interference which the New York
Times noted a couple of years ago in an article about its problems.
Unsurprisingly, like Hobbs, DPP said there was no criminal
case. Despite criminal charges, the
police never opened a criminal docket as it ought to have. So really, the criminal case never happened.
This was deniability or cover up by authorities to protect influential people.
(In related events in 2019, detectives at two police stations including
Woodstock refused to accept criminal charges against the Health Professions
Council.)
Pathologist Gavin Kirk gave post-mortem findings to accused
Andrew Nicol despite by National Health Act regulations and those applying to
officers of the court it is privileged and can only be released to the police,
prosecutor and court, and family of deceased. Kirk himself mentioned this restriction. DPP
were informed of his action but did nothing nor did it influence their
confidence in him.
Kirk’s competence and role as pathologist is limited to
gathering evidence on the causes of death, not events while the patient was
alive of which he has no direct knowledge. In this matter, at the time he
declared in writing he had no remit over the patient’s treatment at hospital
before her death.
Instead, over the family’s objections and pleas to consult
an independent expert, DPP commissioned Kirk to make a finding that
unsurprisingly found Nicol et al, who Kirk already knew were accused of crimes
and misconduct, were not medically
negligent. He would have obtained
details about the deceased’s hospital care from Nicol. So probably Nicol told
Kirk what he, DPP and their political masters – Zille and government – wanted
to hear: there was no medical negligence, no foul play. Kirk and Nicol are senior members of UCT
Medical School and WCHD, a conflict of interest they all chose to ignore.
Oddly two years later police told the family medical
negligence shall be covered by the still unscheduled inquest. However, given the irregularities, the family’s
view is the inquest shall be a sham and want no part of.
There were numerous irregularities and illegalities here.
There was an assault and negligence as defined by international and South
African law (as with the Hobbs case, DPP have no competence on medical law) on
an unconscious patient by unsupervised 27 year-old junior doctor Mikhail Botha
and others that directly led to her death by suffocation and cardiac arrest.
Groote Schuur’s doctors also neglected her known anaemia which weakened her
heart.
There were attempts by Nicol, Patel, Engelbrecht, Zille and
others at the hospital, facilitated by officers of the court, to cover up and
gaslight the family. There was incompetence, unethical and illegal conduct by
police and DPP and a lack of professional judgement and illegality by the
pathologist. And egregiously there were exchanges of information between
officers of the court – prosecutor, police and pathologist – and accused that
benefited the accused, DPP’s and police’s political masters.
Significantly, the information given Zille changed her and
her government’s behaviour and approach and gave them insights that advantaged
them. It ended with her refusal, after earlier reluctantly agreeing to do, to
investigate and hold WCHD staff to account. Instead, she maintained her full
confidence in them.
The causality from SAPS and DPP disseminating information
(their known deficiencies militate against inadvertent mistakes) to not
bringing charges is critical proving the parties’ unlawful conduct. It’s
probable among the information shared was DPP commissioning pathologist Gavin
Kirk for a medical negligence opinion (the family learned about it second hand)
that likely gave WCHD an opportunity to backstop their version of events. But Kirk’s ex parte consultant’s opinion, i.e. beyond the scope of his ex officio role as forensic pathologist,
was not objective. His conflict of interest and irregular prior communication
with Nicol likely influenced his finding.
The fact there was no proper investigation, for example,
statements were not obtained from the accused or family, hospital and WCHD
witnesses, unheard of in a “criminal investigation”, and that DPP resultantly
brought no charges, emboldened the accused to believe they were in the clear. This
included Nicol et al fabricating part of the patient’s medical record to
support their version that included hearsay accounts the real record does not reflect.
Had statements been obtained at the start of the purported
investigation the accused and WCHD not have had an opportunity to later set up
a story to support their version. DPP’s
incompetence and failure – the police told the family they were awaiting
instructions –damaged attempts to find the truth. Note before any investigation was done and
not even the pathologist’s findings in the docket, DPP declared there was no
criminal case.
DPP denied it acted improperly, though. But after
saying there was no medical negligence or crime, i.e. the patient died of
natural causes, they contradictorily referred the case to an inquest the
purpose of which is to determine cause of death.
So, out of expedience rather than firmly held conviction, they
shuffled the case to Wynberg Magistrate Court.
The senior prosecutor there declined it after previously saying he had
“no choice” about cases referred to him by his superiors, DPP, because there
were “problems” with it.
Contacted informally for comment, Cape Town inquest
magistrate Ingrid Arntsen said she had heard “talk” about the case and agreed
with the opinion it was a “mess”. At the
time it was not on her docket. But afterwards she was agitated and said any
communication must be with the inquest clerk.
In June 2019 DPP said the case was out of their hands and
referred the family to the inquest clerk, Wilmarie du Toit. She told the family
they would be contacted “once [inquest magistrate Arntsen] has read the docket
and made findings”, i.e. a desktop review.
The Inquest Act states the family’s wishes must be taken
into account but it appeared a decision about the form of inquest – desktop or
hearing with evidence – had already been made without consulting them.
To the question if the magistrate was taking note of
additional information sent DPP and Court, Du Toit replied she had no business
passing information to the magistrate and the family must do so to “the
prosecutor [DPP]” despite been told they
had referred the family to her.
To these and other questions she lashed out to the family’s
representative, “Do not twist my words to justify your warped sense of public
servants [sic]” and other rude and aggressive statements. Her and Arntsen’s tone were combative and
unresponsive and they might not be impartial should the case proceed.
It’s apparent the Court does not have information of all
developments for which DPP again is largely to blame. They should have ensured
the Court was kept abreast of developments. That they did not shows their
indifference to the case from the start. If the inquest should proceed with the
irregularities described here unexamined, it shall be a sham.
This is exactly what happened with the HPCSA’s 2018/19 so-called
inquiry that exonerated the accused which did not examine all information
provided and with other irregularities that included an inquiry member,
Tygerberg Hospital’s head of surgery Elmin Steyn, having a personal/business
relationship with accused Nicol.
The family have heard nothing further from either DPP or
Court. The “inquest” case is dormant four years after the death of the patient.
This is typical of cases originating at Groote Schuur Hospital like the death
on 11 May 2016 of 16 year-old T. M.
T. M. was admitted to the ER feeling unwell but talkative
and ambulatory. She went into a coma during the hour after admission while
doctors attended her. She was brain dead
shortly after. Life support was removed
later the week.
Doctors refused to say what they did in that critical hour
that might have contributed to her death. They tried to blame her parents, for
what no one knows. There were no investigations and an absence or brusqueness
of response from authorities.
DPP could withdraw their decision there were no criminal and/or
medical (Kirk’s defective opinion there was no negligence) actions that
contributed to the patient’s death. If so, no legal or procedural reason
prevents them prosecuting prima facie assault (absence of informed consent and
violation of bodily integrity) and culpable homicide against the doctors. If an inquest proceeds, though, it must be based on the evidence
and law. The alleged conduct of the
offices and officers including politicians, even if no longer with their then
employers, must be made a terms of reference.
The family informed director of public prosecutions Rodney
de Kock of the irregularities including his office and SAPS exchanging
privileged information with the accused, the Western Cape government. He did
not respond except DPP demanded the family correspond with the chief clerk
about any matter, but he permits the accused and politicians direct access to
himself and his staff.
The similarities to Hobbs is striking. Those implicated in the death of the patient
and their DA Western Cape government champions, even if it was just medical
negligence, have gotten away, their conduct deliberately unexamined and
unpunished. Like Hobbs and his sponsors
and those responsible for Tatiana M’s care, there is no mark on their
reputations and success. Under these
circumstances justice cannot be achieved.
The responsible prosecutor Ajam and De Kock bear blame for the irregular
way DPP managed the case.
When the family laid a complaint
about the police’s poor service with the Western Cape provincial commissioner,
one of the two implicated detectives, was instructed to investigate
himself. He asked the complainant to
sign a document he had done so who refused and told him to go away.
Comments
Post a Comment