Zimbabwe: Doctor Loses Bid to Overturn Professional Ban for Refusing to Authorise Blood Transfusion On Religious Grounds

A Harare doctor who believes that blood is sacred and must not be transfused has failed in his bid to overturn a professional ban restricting his medical practice after the High Court ruled that his constitutional challenge was filed “prematurely.”

Dr Seleman Saidi, who was disciplined for refusing to administer blood transfusions on religious grounds, had approached the High Court arguing that his faith-based stance should not cost him his practising licence.

However, Justice Samuel Deme dismissed his constitutional application, ruling that he should have first pursued the appeal process provided under the Health Professions Act.

The judge said the doctor was required to exhaust the internal appeal procedures before seeking constitutional redress.

“The present application was prematurely instituted before exhausting other legal remedies,” the judge said before striking the application off the roll.

Dr Saidi, a registered medical practitioner, was found guilty of unprofessional conduct by the Medical and Dental Practitioners Council and the Health Professions Authority after he refused to perform or authorise blood transfusions for patients, citing his religious convictions.

Following the disciplinary hearing, his medical practice was restricted to public health, forensic pathology, and histopathology, areas that do not involve blood transfusions.

Through his lawyer, Professor Lovemore Madhuku, Saidi argued that his beliefs about the sanctity of blood were protected by the Constitution, particularly the rights to freedom of conscience (Section 60) and freedom to choose and carry on a profession (Section 64).

“The applicant maintains his belief that blood is sacred and therefore he would not order or administer blood transfusions,” Madhuku argued, insisting his client’s stance should not cost him his licence.

Saidi filed the case against the Medical and Dental Practitioners Council, the Health Professions Authority of Zimbabwe, and the Minister of Health and Child Care.

Advocate Tawanda Zhuwarara represented the first and second respondents, while the Minister did not participate in the proceedings.

After hearing arguments, Justice Deme upheld Zhuwarara’s position that Saidi should have first appealed under Section 128 of the Health Professions Act before approaching the constitutional court.

“It is the settled position of our law that where there exist other remedies, a litigant may not approach a court on a constitutional basis and ignore the remedies at his disposal,” the judge said, quoting from a previous Constitutional Court ruling.

The judge noted that the appeal route was more effective, allowing direct review of the disciplinary authority’s decision while preserving Saidi’s right to later seek constitutional relief if necessary.

Deme also criticised Saidi’s decision to withdraw an earlier appeal, describing his reasoning as “vague and unconvincing.”

He held that Section 85(2) of the Constitution, which guarantees access to the courts, could not override the subsidiarity principle.

The application was struck off the roll, with no order as to costs.

“This is a constitutional matter which does have a bearing on the public interest. An order that there shall be no order as to costs is appropriate in the circumstances,” Justice Deme ruled.

Dr Saidi remains barred from practising general medicine and must first lodge an appeal through the Health Professions Authority before seeking constitutional redress.

By New Zimbabwe.