PRINCIPLE STATEMENT

A charge of infamous conduct must be of a serious infraction of acceptable standard of behaviour or ethics of the profession. It connotes conduct so disreputable and morally reprehensible as to bring the profession into disrepute if condoned or left unpenalised. Although the medical profession is the primary judge of what is infamous conduct, it cannot do so without paying attention to what the law permits, either of the patient or of the practitioner.

RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)

Per Ayoola, JSC, in Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v. Okonkwo (2001) NLC-2131999(SC) at p. 39; Paras A–C.
"A charge of infamous conduct must be of a serious infraction of acceptable standard of behaviour or ethics of the profession. It connotes conduct so disreputable and morally reprehensible as to bring the profession into disrepute if condoned or left unpenalised. Although the medical profession is the primary judge of what is infamous conduct, it cannot do so without paying attention to what the law permits, either of the patient or of the practitioner."
View Judgment

EXPLANATION / SCOPE

Infamous conduct requires a serious infraction of acceptable professional standards—conduct so disreputable and morally reprehensible that it would bring the profession into disrepute if unpenalised. The medical profession is the primary judge, but cannot disregard what the law permits for patients or practitioners. The standard is high—not every ethical breach qualifies. The conduct must be gross misconduct. The tribunal must consider legal constraints on practitioners. Disciplining a practitioner for lawful conduct (e.g., respecting patient refusal) is impermissible. The profession’s judgment must align with legal principles. The standard protects practitioners from disciplinary action for complying with the law. The conduct must be truly infamous, not merely controversial.

CASES APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE