Aliu v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 434 (Admin) (25 February 2021)

Dr Aliu was removed from the register on grounds of inadequate professional performance which was described as “unacceptable” and “a cause for concern.”

On 20 August 2020, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) directed that Dr Udo Musa Aliu’s name be erased from the Medical Register on grounds of impairment because of deficient professional performance.

Following a complaint from the Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, which had contracted Dr Aliu to work as a locum registrar in general surgery and asked him to leave after one day due to serious concerns raised about his clinical competence, an appraisal was undertaken.  The appraisal concluded that the care afforded “fell seriously below the expected standard.”  Dr Aliu was accordingly required by the GMC to undertake a performance assessment.

The GMC assessment concluded that Dr Aliu’s professional performance was judged to be “unacceptable” and “a cause for concern.”

Dr Aliu’s, who represented himself, complaints about the outcome of his hearing before the MPTS fall broadly under the following heads:

  1. a challenge to the determination on the facts because it was made without audio or video recordings of the Assessments
  2. a challenge to the adequacy of the Assessment, which is argued to be incomplete and rushed, it should have been conducted over a number of days, rather than a period of, in total, 10 hours.
  • Some serious assertions of collusion, bias, and fabrication between the Medical Assessors
  1. the failure as part of the Assessment to visit any hospital where he had worked, or to observe him working in a real hospital which rendered the Assessment unfair
  2. The results themselves are not credible in Dr Aliu’s eyes.

The GMC described the appeal as “hopeless” that Mrs Justice Foster agreed with. In dismissing the appeal, she said

“In the light of the unchallengeable findings of the Tribunal, it is quite unarguable that this appeal could succeed, whether as to the decision as to impairment, or as to erasure.  Erasure was in my judgment, an unappealable sanction on the facts of this case given the duty of the Defendant to protect the public and to uphold the good name of the profession.”

Follow Us