Unprofessional conduct
The Committee of Formal Inquiry (CFI) acts against 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 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
Ms Sarah Zandrie Opsahl (P45540)
Ms Opsahl, a pharmacist, was found guilty of the following charges:
- In terms of Rule 4(a) of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by failing to supervise pharmacy support personnel, resulting in a severe dispensing error.
- 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 put systems in place to prevent dispensing errors.
The CFI sentenced Ms Opsahl 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 R50 000,00, and a cost order of R12 785,11.
Mr Baas Michael Amon Hadebe (P04831)
Mr Hadebe, a pharmacist, was found guilty in terms of Section 22 of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, in terms of Rule 4(a) of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, of a dispensing error.
The CFI sentenced Mr Hadebe 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 R25 000,00, of which R10 000,00 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 R Marema
Mr Marema, a pharmacy owner, was found guilty of the following charges:
- In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by registering a pharmacist as Responsible Pharmacist when said pharmacist was not aware of such and was not at the pharmacy.
- In terms of Regulation 1(b)(ii) of the Regulations relating to information to be furnished to the Registrar, for failing to notify the Registrar of the change in ownership of the pharmacy.
- In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by conducting a pharmacy without a Responsible Pharmacist.
The CFI sentenced Mr Marema 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 R75 000,00, as well as a cost order of R12 785,11.
Mr Jacobus Johannes Odendaal (P09456)
Mr Odendaal, a Responsible Pharmacist, was found guilty in respect of the following charges:
- Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
- In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, for conducting a pharmacy without a pharmacist.
- In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing pharmacy support personnel to practice the scope of practice of a pharmacist.
- In terms of Section 22A(6)(d) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by issuing a prescription more than 30 days after it was issued.
- 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 Regulation 36 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to supervise pharmacy support personnel when dispensing schedule 6 prescriptions.
- In terms of Regulation 35(1) and (2) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to accurately maintain a schedule 2 register.
- In terms of Section 14(4)(a) or (b) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by keeping or dispensing unregistered medicines or substances.
- In terms of Rule 23 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by promoting the sale of medicine with potential for abuse.
The CFI sentenced Mr Odendaal 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 R25 000,00, of which R10 000,00 is suspended for a period of 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 Victor Matthys Botes (P19174)
Mr Botes, a Responsible Pharmacist, was found guilty in respect of the following charges:
- Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
- In terms of Rules 4(c) and 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.
- 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 failing to record schedule 1 and 2 medicine sales in a prescription book or permanent record.
The CFI sentenced Mr Botes 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 R15 000,00, of which R7 500,00 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, as well as a cost order of R12 785,11.
Ms Zandile Dlamini (P48493)
Ms Dlamini, a Responsible Pharmacist, has been found guilty in terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy by conducting a pharmacy without a pharmacist.
The CFI sentenced Ms Dlamini 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 R25 000,00, of which R12 500 is suspended for a period of 12 months on condition that she is not found guilty of the same or similar offence during the period of suspension, and a cost order of R12 785,11.
Ms Catrina Florina Pretorius (P29951)
Ms Pretorius, a Responsible Pharmacist, has been 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 failing to supervise pharmacy support personnel, resulting in a dispensing error.
The CFI sentenced Ms Pretorius 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 pay a fine of R12 500,00, of which R6 250,00 is suspended for a period of 12 months on condition that she is not found guilty of a similar offence during the period of suspension, and a cost order of R12 785,11.
Mr Lesiba Jack Molomo (P57382)
Mr Molomo, a Pharmacist’s Assistant (Post-Basic), has been found guilty in terms of Rule 2 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, read together with Section 22F of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, for a dispensing error.
The CFI sentenced Mr Molomo 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 R7 000,00, of which R3 500,00 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 Mpho Roland Monama (P32747)
Mr Monama, a Pharmacist’s Assistant (Post-Basic), has been found guilty in respect of the following charges:
- In terms of Rule 4(a) of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by incorrectly loading a prescription on the system.
- 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 acting outside his scope of practice, resulting in a dispensing error.
The CFI sentenced Mr Monama 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 R20 000, of which R10 000,00 is suspended for a period of 12 months on condition that he is not found guilty of a similar offence during the period of suspension, as well as a cost order of R12 785,11.
Mr Tsakane Ronald Mabunda (P16539)
Mr Mabunda, a pharmacist and pharmacy owner, has been found guilty in respect of the following charges:
- Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
- In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by failing to conduct a pharmacy under the direct personal supervision of a Responsible Pharmacist.
- In terms of Rule 10 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by registering a Responsible Pharmacist with the Council without the knowledge or consent of said pharmacist.
- In terms of Rule 10 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by displaying the name of a deceased person as the Responsible Pharmacist at the main entrance of the pharmacy.
- In terms of Sections 14 and 19 of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by stocking unregistered medicines in the pharmacy.
- 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.
- In terms of Regulation 39 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by prepacking medicines without following Good Manufacturing Practice.
- In terms of Regulations 35 and 36 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by ordering large quantities of medicines without having the corresponding prescriptions or proof of recording of such sales for schedule 1 and 2 medicines.
- In terms of Regulations 35 and 36 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by dispensing medicines to a patient without counselling and recording the details of the patient.
- 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 dispense scheduled medicines.
The CFI sentenced Mr Mabunda 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 R120 000,00, and a cost order of R12 785,11.
Mr Zweli Vincent Ndlovu
Mr Ndlovu, a pharmacy owner, has been found guilty in respect of the following charges:
- Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
- In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by conducting a pharmacy without a pharmacist.
- In terms of Section 22(4) and (5) of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, by failing to register a Responsible Pharmacist with Council.
- In terms of Rules 18 and 4(c) of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing unregistered persons to have direct access to scheduled medicines.
- In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing pharmacy support personnel to dispense medicines without supervision and outside of their scope of practice.
The CFI sentenced Mr Ndlovu 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 owners for a period of fifteen years and in terms of Section 13 of the Pharmacy Act shall not be entitled to remain or be registered as the owner of a pharmacy or hold any beneficial interest in a pharmacy for period of fifteen years.
Mrs Tiny Tebogo Nkoane and Mr David Mjong Nkoane
Mrs Nkoane and Mr Nkoane, pharmacy owners, have been found guilty in respect of the following charges:
- Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
- In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by conducting a pharmacy without a pharmacist.
- In terms of Section 22(4) and (5) of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, by failing to register a Responsible Pharmacist with Council.
- In terms of Rule 4(c) 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.
The CFI sentenced Mrs Nkoane and Mr Nkoane 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 owners for a period of fifteen years and in terms of Section 13 of the Pharmacy Act shall not be entitled to remain or be registered as the owner of a pharmacy or hold any beneficial interest in a pharmacy for period of fifteen years.
Mr Tsholofelo Bethuel Mogale and Mr Tshireletso Ramasodi
Mr Mogale and Mr Ramasodi, pharmacy owners, have been found guilty of the following charges:
- Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
- In terms of Section 22 of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, read together with Regulation 72 of the Regulations relating to the registration of persons and the maintenance of registers, by continuing to operate a pharmacy after the pharmacy registration/recording had been removed by the South African Pharmacy Council.
- In terms of Section 22(4) and (5) of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, by failing to register a Responsible Pharmacist with the South African Pharmacy Council.
- In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by conducting a pharmacy without a pharmacist.
- In terms of Rule 18 and Rule 4(c) 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.
The CFI sentenced Mr Mogale and Mr Ramasodi 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 owners for a period of fifteen years and in terms of Section 13 of the Pharmacy Act shall not be entitled to remain or be registered as the owner of a pharmacy or hold any beneficial interest in a pharmacy for period of fifteen years.