LEGAL PRINCIPLE: MEDICAL LAW – Professional Conduct – Charge of Infamous Conduct – Sufficiency of Particulars
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
When, therefore, the respondent was charged with infamous conduct and particulars were given in the charge of the acts or omission alleged to amount to infamous conduct that, in my judgment, is sufficient. The respondent could only be pronounced guilty and penalised pursuant to section 16(1) and (2) of the Act if the facts alleged and proved lead reasonably to his being adjudged guilty of 'infamous conduct in any professional respect.' At best, reference to particular breaches of rules in the particulars of the charge is an optional matter of details which can be dispensed without injustice to the person charged. What is important is that the person charged should have sufficient notice of the acts alleged to have been committed by him which add up to 'infamous conduct.'
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ayoola, JSC, in Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v. Okonkwo (2001) NLC-2131999(SC) at p. 26; Paras A–D.
"When, therefore, the respondent was charged with infamous conduct and particulars were given in the charge of the acts or omission alleged to amount to infamous conduct that, in my judgment, is sufficient. The respondent could only be pronounced guilty and penalised pursuant to section 16(1) and (2) of the Act if the facts alleged and proved lead reasonably to his being adjudged guilty of 'infamous conduct in any professional respect.' At best, reference to particular breaches of rules in the particulars of the charge is an optional matter of details which can be dispensed without injustice to the person charged. What is important is that the person charged should have sufficient notice of the acts alleged to have been committed by him which add up to 'infamous conduct.'"
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A charge of infamous conduct is sufficient if it gives particulars of the acts or omissions alleged. Reference to specific rule breaches is optional—not mandatory. The key requirement is that the person charged has sufficient notice of the acts alleged that add up to “infamous conduct.” The tribunal must find that the proved facts reasonably lead to a finding of infamous conduct. The principle prioritises substance over form. The accused must know the case to meet. Technical precision in citing rules is not required. The charge must be fair and not ambiguous. The tribunal cannot convict on acts not charged. The principle applies to professional disciplinary proceedings generally. The accused must not be prejudiced by lack of clarity.
