Unprofessional conduct

Council robustly guards the public’s right to quality pharmaceutical services, while upholding the good image of the pharmacy profession, by investigating alleged unprofessional conduct by registered persons and bringing disciplinary processes against those found to be endangering public health and/or bringing into disrepute the good name of the pharmacy profession. Regulation 26 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, requires that sanctions issued by a Committee of Formal Inquiry be published by the SAPC periodically.

The Committee of Formal Inquiry acts against unprofessional conduct

The South African Pharmacy Council (SAPC) is legislatively mandated to protect the public’s right to quality pharmaceutical care and to uphold the good image of the pharmacy profession. To achieve this end, the Committee of Formal Inquiry investigates alleged misconduct by pharmacy professionals and premises owners, and institutes various penalties on those found guilty – these can range from a fine and/or suspension from practice, or complete deregistration.

In terms of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, in particular Regulation 26, respondents who have been found guilty by a Committee of Formal Inquiry (CFI) shall have their names, together with the summary of the charges and the penalty imposed by the CFI, published in a Council report.

Findings of the Committee of Formal Inquiry

Mr Thembani Basil Mangolele

Mr Mangolele, a pharmacy owner, was found guilty of the following charges:

  1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
  2. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing an unregistered person access to scheduled medicines.
  3. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by conducting a pharmacy without the supervision of a pharmacist or Responsible Pharmacist.
  4. In terms of Regulation 3 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to put batch number or expiration dates on prepacked medicines.
  5. In terms of Rule 2.7.3.9(a) of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice, by having expired medicines amongst the regular trading stock.
  6. In terms of Regulation 36 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to keep an up-to-date register of all Schedule 5 purchases and sales.
  7. In terms of Regulation 35(2) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to keep an up-to-date register of all Schedule 1 and 2 medicines.

The CFI sentenced Mr Mangolele in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to be removed from the register of pharmacy owners for a period of ten (10) years.

Mr N Chaturgon

Mr Chaturgon, a pharmacy owner, was found guilty of the following charges:

  1. In terms of Section 22(4) of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974 read together with Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by operating a pharmacy without a pharmacist present.
  2. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing unregistered and/or unqualified persons to perform acts pertaining the scope of practice of a pharmacist.
  3. In terms of Regulation 10 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by keeping large quantities of prepacked medicines and failing to label them correctly.

The CFI sentenced Mr Chaturgon in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R40 000,00, R5 000,00 of which fine is suspended for a period of 12 months on condition that he is not found guilty of the same or similar offence during the period of suspension, and a cost order of R12 785,11.

Mr Muazzam Hoosen (P48860)

Mr Hoosen, a Responsible Pharmacist, was found guilty in respect of the following charges:

  1. In terms of Rule 9 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, read together with Rule 1.3 of the Rules relating to the Code of Conduct for pharmacists and other persons registered in terms of the Pharmacy Act, by placing medicine parcels in a public space with the patient names showing.
  2. In terms of Section 22A(5)(b) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, read together with Rule 23 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by dispensing two Schedule 6 prescriptions from the same doctor with the same date, thereby dispensing medication in a manner that may be interpreted as misuse or abuse or unsafe use of medicine.
  3. In terms of Regulation 39 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by prepacking various medicine mixes without labels.
  4. In terms of Section 22A(5)(b) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by allowing a nurse to operate in the pharmacy without obtaining the relevant Section 22A permit.

The CFI sentenced Mr Hoosen in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R20 000,00, as well as a cost order of R12 785,11.

Ms Narisksha Sewmohan (P32509)

Ms Sewmohan, a Pharmacist’s Assistant (Post-Basic), was found guilty in terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps by acting outside of her scope of practice by operating a pharmacy without a pharmacist present.

The CFI sentenced Ms Sewmohan in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R10 000,00, which fine is suspended for a period of 12 months on condition that he is not found guilty of the same or similar offence during the period of suspension.

Mr Moshin Ayob (P21708)

Mr Ayob, a Responsible Pharmacist, was found guilty of the following charges:

  1. In terms of Section 22A(5)(b) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by dispensing scheduled medicine without a valid doctor’s prescription.
  2. In terms of Regulation 35(1), (2) and (3) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by dispensing schedule 2 medicine without recording the details of the patient in a prescription book or permanent record.
  3. In terms of Rule 23 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by dispensing a large quantity of medicine in a manner that has its aim or may be interpreted or regarded as having as its aim the promotion of the misuse or abuse or the detrimental or injudicious or unsafe use of medicine.
  4. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing unregistered persons access to schedule 2 medicines.
  5. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing unregistered persons to pre-pack medicines.
  6. In terms of Rule 2.7.3.9 of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice, by failing to separate expired medicine from normal trading stock.
  7. In terms of Regulation 3 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by compounding medicines without indicating the number of days the medicine should be used for.
  8. In terms of Regulation 39(a), (b) and (c) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by repackaging medicines without indicating the batch numbers of the original packaging.
  9. In terms of Section 14 of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965 read together with Rule 10 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by stocking unregistered medicines.
  10. In terms of Regulation 33(3)(g), (h) and (i) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by dispensing medicine without the correct information on the label.
  11. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.

The CFI sentenced Mr Ayob in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to be suspended from practising as a pharmacist for three years, which suspension is wholly suspended on condition that she is not found guilty of the same or similar offences during the period of suspension, as well as a fine of R140 000,00 and a cost order of R12 785,11.

Mr Thembinkosi Pavel Zimba (P28534)

Mr Zimba, a Responsible Pharmacist, was found guilty of the following charges:

  1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
  2. In terms of Regulation 10(5) and (6) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to label medicines that were dispensed as pharmacist-initiated therapy.
  3. In terms of Regulation 35 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by ordering excessive amounts of schedule 1-2 medicines without a prescription book or permanent record recording the purchases and sales of such medicine.

The CFI sentenced Mr Zimba in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R38 000,00, as well as a cost order of R12 785,11.

Mr Johann Frederich Otto (P09594)

Mr Otto, a Responsible Pharmacist, was found guilty of the following charges:

  1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
  2. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by conducting a pharmacy without a pharmacist present.
  3. In terms of Rule 4(c) of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by storing schedule 1 medicine in the front shop.
  4. In terms of Section 22A(5)(b) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by dispensing scheduled medicine without a valid doctor’s prescription.
  5. In terms of Regulation 33 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by prepacking medicines without batch numbers on the packets.
  6. In terms of Rule 4 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by failing to properly set aside and mark expired medicines.
  7. In terms of Regulation 36 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to keep an up-to-date register of all schedule 6 purchases and sales.

The CFI sentenced Mr Otto in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R52 000,00, of which R7 500,00 is suspended for three (3) years on condition that he is not found guilty of the same or similar offence during the period of suspension, a caution and reprimand, as well as a cost order of R12 785,11.

Mr Brandon Darren George

Mr George, a pharmacy owner, was found guilty of the following charges:

  1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
  2. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing unregistered persons to perform the acts specifically pertaining to the scope of practice of a pharmacist.
  3. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by conducting a pharmacy without a pharmacist present.
  4. In terms of Regulation 39 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by storing large quantities of prepacked medicines.
  5. In terms of Regulation 35 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by dispensing schedule 1 and 2 medicines without recording the patients’ details in a prescription book or permanent record.
  6. In terms of Regulation 10(5) and (6) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by dispensing medicine without labelling it.
  7. In terms of Section 22A(5)(b) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by selling schedule 5 medicines in large quantities without valid doctor’s prescriptions.

The CFI sentenced Mr George in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R123 000,00, as well as a cost order of R12 785,11.

Mr Suthienund Ramalakan Maharaj (P07667)

Mr Maharaj, a Responsible Pharmacist, was found guilty of the following charges:

  1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
  2. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing unregistered persons access to scheduled medicines and/or to perform the scope of practice of a pharmacist.
  3. In terms of Section 22(A)(5)(b) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by dispensing schedule 5 medicines without a valid doctors’ prescription.
  4. In terms of Regulation 36 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to keep an up-to-date register for all schedule 6 purchases and sales.
  5. In terms of Regulation 35 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by dispensing schedule 1 and 2 medicines without recording the patients’ details in a prescription book or other permanent record.

The CFI sentenced Mr Maharaj in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R66 000,00, of which R12 500,00 is suspended for a period of three (3) years on condition that he is not found guilty of the same or similar offence during the period of suspension, as well as a cost order of R12 785,11.

Mr Anesipho Sonkobongela (P64667)

Mr Sonkobongela, a pharmacy student, was found guilty in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by conducting himself in a manner that harms the dignity or honour of the profession.

The CFI cautioned and reprimanded Mr Sonkobongelo in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974.

Mr Avesh Balgobind Rughoobeer (P10950)

Mr Rughoobeer, a pharmacy owner and pharmacist, was found guilty of the following charges:

  1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
  2. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by operating a pharmacy without a pharmacist present.
  3. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing unregistered persons access to scheduled medicines.
  4. In terms of Regulation 36 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to keep an up-to-date register for all schedule 6 purchases and sales.
  5. In terms of Regulation 35 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to keep a prescription book or other permanent record for the sale of all schedule 1 to 6 medicines.
  6. In terms of Regulation 39 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to follow the correct procedures for pre-packing medicine.
  7. In terms of Rule 2.7.3.9 of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice, by failing to remove expired stock from the normal trading stock.

The CFI sentenced Mr Rughoobeer in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R60 000,00, of which R10 000,00 is suspended for a period of twelve (12) months on condition that he is not found guilty of the same or similar offences during the period of suspension, as well as a cost order of R12 785,11.

Mr Emmanuel Lufuno Luthingi

Mr Luthingi, a pharmacy owner, was found guilty of the following charges:

  1. In terms of Section 22 of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, read with Rule 10 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by operating a pharmacy without a licence.
  2. In terms of Section 22 of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, read with Regulation 8(4) and (5) of the Regulations relating to the ownership and licensing of pharmacies, by failing to record a pharmacy with the South African Pharmacy Council.
  3. In terms of Section 22(4) of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, by failing to register a Responsible Pharmacist with the South African Pharmacy Council.

The CFI sentenced Mr Luthingi in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R55 000,00, as well as a cost order of R12 785,11.

Mr Ralph Tendai Kandiwa (P46193)

Mr Kandiwa, a Responsible Pharmacist and pharmacy owner, was found guilty of the following charges:

  1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
  2. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by operating a pharmacy without a pharmacist present.
  3. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing unregistered persons access to scheduled medicines and/or to perform acts pertaining to the scope of practice of a pharmacist.

The CFI sentenced Mr Zimba in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R45 000,00, of which R5 000,00 is suspended for a period of twelve (12) years provided that he is not found guilty of the same or similar offence during the period of suspension, as well as a cost order of R12 785,11.

Ms Doris Cornelia Raesetsa Kubuzie (P06782)

Ms Kubuzie, a Responsible Pharmacist, was found guilty of the following charges:

  1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
  2. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing unregistered persons access to scheduled medicines.
  3. In terms of Regulation 39 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to follow the correct procedures for pre-packing medicines.
  4. In terms of Regulation 10 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to label medicines as required.

The CFI sentenced Ms Kubuzie, in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R23 000,00, of which R8 000,00 is suspended for a period of twelve (12) months on condition that she is not found guilty of the same or similar offences during the period of suspension, as well as a cost order of R12 785,11.

Mr Nelson Africa Khumalo

Mr Khumalo, a pharmacy owner, was found guilty of the following charges:

  1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
  2. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing unregistered persons access to scheduled medicines.
  3. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by conducting a pharmacy without a pharmacist present.

The CFI sentenced Mr Khumalo in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to removal of his name from the register of owners for a period of fifteen (15) years, and he shall not be entitled to remain or to be registered as the owner of a pharmacy or hold any beneficial interest in a pharmacy for this period of time.

Ms Zukiswa Gloria Mhlwatika (P21036)

Ms Mhlwatika, a Responsible Pharmacist and pharmacy owner, was found guilty of the following charges:

  1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
  2. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by operating a pharmacy without a pharmacist present.
  3. In terms of Section 22(5) of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, by failing to have a Responsible Pharmacist registered with the South African Pharmacy Council.
  4. In terms of Regulation 39 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to follow the correct procedures for pre-packing medicine.
  5. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps read together with Regulations 9-13 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by allowing pharmacy support personnel to act outside of their scope of practice.

The CFI sentenced Ms Mhlwatika, in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R30 000,00, of which R15 000,00 is suspended for a period of twelve (12) months on condition that she is not found guilty of the same or similar offences during the period of suspension, as well as a cost order of R12 785,11.

Ms Sithabile Zama Mwelase (P47216)

Ms Mwelase, a Responsible Pharmacist and pharmacy owner, was found guilty of the following charges:

  1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
  2. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by operating a pharmacy without a pharmacist present.
  3. In terms of Regulation 36 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to keep an up-to-date register for all schedule 6 purchases and sales.
  4. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps read together with Regulations 3-4 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by allowing unregistered persons access to scheduled medicines and/or to perform acts pertaining to the scope of practice of a pharmacist.

The CFI sentenced Ms Mwelase, in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R40 000,00, of which R10 000,00 is suspended for a period of twelve (12) months on condition that she is not found guilty of the same or similar offences during the period of suspension, as well as a cost order of R12 785,11.

view all articles

View all

Share this article