---

Phophi Ramathuba’s sympathisers want HPCSA legal advisor, Viceroy Maoka, removed from the case because the premier refused to support him in another case against a senior Limpopo government official.

---

Sizwe sama Yende

---

The fairness Health Professions Council of South Africa’s (HPCSA) disciplinary hearing against Limpopo premier, Dr Phophi Ramathuba, has been questioned following revelations that they have a history.

Ramathuba’s sympathisers, therefore, feel that the HPCSA’s legal adviser, Viceroy Maoka, could be biased since their encounter did not favour Maoka.

The People’s Eye has learnt that Maoka tried to get Ramathuba, who was then Health minister, to testify against former Limpopo government spokesperson, Phuti Seloba, in 2020. Seloba was facing misconduct charges.

RELATED: Limpopo DG used fake intelligence letter to fire spin doctor - Nehawu

Maoka presided over the disciplinary committee that eventually dismissed Seloba from civil service.  Seloba is appealing his dismissal in the Labour Court and has raised many issues that include being summoned to appear before the committee during the Covid-19 lockdown and a fake State Security Agency letter being used to fortify the case against him.

Maoka, according to people close to the premier, had prepared an affidavit that Ramathuba had to sign to strengthen the case against Seloba. Ramathuba refused to get involved.

“This HPCSA disciplinary process against the premier will not be fair if Maoka is involved. He had a previous encounter with the premier before in which they did not agree,” said one of Ramathuba’s sympathisers.

“We believe that for a respectable process to unfold, those involved need to be beyond reproach.”

Maoka is the HPCSA’s prosecutor leading the council’s case of unprofessional conduct Ramathuba – a qualified medical doctor.

The HPCSA decided to take Ramathuba to task last year after she chided a Zimbabwean national who was being attended at Bela Bela hospital in August 2022. Ramathuba sharply raised a concern about the strain that undocumented immigrants put on the country’s inadequate health resources.

Ramathuba is still registered with the HPCSA, which feels that her behaviour was unbecoming of a medical practitioner, and she has to abide by its code of conduct.

The premier’s argument had been that the HPCSA had no jurisdiction over her as she acted as a politicians, a Health MEC, at Bela Bela Hospital and not as a doctor.

This case has the hallmark of setting a precedent especially how registered medical practitioners need to conduct themselves even when they are no longer in the health sector.

Maoka did not respond to written questions that were sent to him on October 14.

HPCSA spokesperson, Priscilla Sekhonyana, denied that Maoka had sought to get Ramathuba to testify against Seloba.

“Mr Maoka did not interact with Dr Ramathuba during this matter, nor did he seek an affidavit from Dr Ramathuba as Mr Maoka was not the initiator in this matter. The only time which Mr. Maoka interacted with Dr Ramathuba was during the HPCSA’s disciplinary inquiry and this happened in the presence of her legal representatives,” Sekhonyana said.

She further said that Maoka was not the chairperson of the Professional Conduct Committee, but the proforma complainant who was tasked to present the HPCSA’s case at the inquiry.

 Asked why Ramathuba was pursued for acting in his her capacity as a politician, Sekhonyana said that  in terms of the Health Professions Act,  the HPCSA was obliged to investigate complaints against health professionals registered with it and where there was substance in the allegations of unprofessional conduct levelled against a health professional.

“This has been confirmed by our superior courts. The Act does not specifically allow or disallow medical practitioners from being politicians,” she said.

Sekhonyana said that if a health professional wished to hold two positions, one of which was not regulated by the Act, he may elect to deregister with the HPCSA.

“Should the practitioner not deregister, and a complaint is lodged with the HPCSA, in terms of the Act, the HPCSA is obliged to investigate and if there is substance such matter may be referred to the professional conduct committee.”