Media Release
The
long-awaited professional conduct hearing of Dr De Vos, who allegedly advised a
mother that her unborn baby is a human being, started on 27 and 28 October 2019
in Cape Town. Over two days, four grounds were argued as to why all the charges
against Dr De Vos should be set aside.
In essence, these
grounds were:
1. The HPSCA did not
follow its own regulations before the decision to charge Dr De Vos and thus the
hearing was a nullity.
2. The charges were too
vague to enable dr De Vos to prepare his defence.
3. The length of time
between when action was first taken against him, April 2017, and the eventual
hearing on 29th October 2019, was excessive and for various reasons unfair. In
this regard amongst other things the following was emphasized: All the delays
were caused by the HPSCA, without any explanation a single charge was withdrawn
in July 2018, only to be reinstated a few months later in November 2018, only
to be replaced by four wholly new charges some 3 weeks before the first day of
the hearing in August 2019, the severe ongoing prejudice to dr De Vos who as a
result of the conduct of the HPSCA has not been able to practice as a doctor
since June 2017 up to the present day, despite not yet having had a
hearing.
4. Bad faith by the
HPSCA – numerous examples were given, including the changing of the charge
sheets and the failure to give necessary information in terms of undertakings
by it.
Various decisions of
the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal were relied on by Dr
De Vos.
During the first day,
the prosecutor for the first time provided some of the information sought by De
Vos to prepare for the hearing (e.g. a medical report), and conceded that other
crucial information is not in their possession (e.g. the text messages referred
to in the charges, and the statement by the complainant (patient) in charges 1
& 2).
At the end of the
second day, after a short adjournment by the disciplinary committee of the
HPSCA, it ruled that counts 1 and 2
“were properly before it” (which suggests it was thinking of the nullity
argument) and could continue. Furthermore, it stated that it still had to
decide about counts 3 and 4. No reasons were provided at the time of the
ruling, and the Committee said it would give its reasons for its decision
later.
Dr De Vos’s legal
representative informed the committee that before they could decide on the way
ahead, they needed a decision about counts 3 and 4 and the reasons for all
their decisions. The main reason for wanting the reasons is so that a decision
can be made as to whether the decision should be taken to the High Court on
review. The disciplinary committee was also informed that a piecemeal approach,
starting with counts 1 and 2 whilst they made a decision on counts 3 and 4, was
impractical and ill advised.
What is of possible
significance is that when it made its ruling the committee of the HPSCA stated
that counts 1 and 2 were “properly” before it. This suggests that at this stage
the committee had only addressed the nullity argument of Dr De Vos, and not the
arguments as regards the vagueness of the charges, that a fair hearing was no
longer possible and that the matter was driven by bad faith on the part of the
HPSCA. When clarity was asked for in this regard, the chairperson stated that
their ruling also took into account the other said points. This is one of the
reasons why the reasons of the committee are so important – to enable the legal
representatives of Dr De Vos to try and understand how the committee arrived at
its decision, not least of all how it dealt with the cited decisions of the
Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal. This is crucial before
the legal representatives advise Dr De Vos on the way ahead.
Dr De Vos, who is a
member of Doctors For Life International (DFL) is supported by DFL and legal
team (De Wet Wepener Attorneys and Adv Keith Matthee SC) on a pro bono basis.
For more information, please contact Doctors For Life International at 032 481
5550 or [email protected]
