The President of the Ghana Medical Association (GMA), Prof. Ernest Yorke, has raised concerns over the language and conclusions used by the committee that investigated the death of Charles Amissah, cautioning against findings that may be interpreted as a judicial determination of guilt.
The committee, chaired by Professor Agyemang Badu Akosa, concluded that a breakdown in emergency medical care, rather than the initial accident, led to the death of the 29-year-old engineer.
It also found that delays and referrals across multiple health facilities contributed to the outcome, prompting disciplinary actions against some health workers.
Speaking on Channel One TV’s The Point of View on Monday, May 11, Prof. Yorke said he would have avoided the use of the term “medical negligence” in describing the outcome of the committee’s findings.
He explained that investigative committees of that nature are not judicial or quasi-judicial bodies and therefore do not have the mandate to pronounce individuals guilty or otherwise.
“For me, I probably wouldn’t have used that word, and the thing is, an investigative committee of that nature, it is not a judicial or quasi-judicial committee. So they cannot pronounce on the guilt or otherwise of persons involved.
“At best, they probably will say that there is reasonable belief to say that they committed some wrong, and if they indeed believe so, then the proper thing is what they’ve done to refer them to the appropriate body, which will now go into much more detail,” he said.
Prof. Yorke added that it is at the disciplinary committee level that more formal processes, such as those conducted by the Medical and Dental Council, take place, including the presentation of evidence, cross-examination of witnesses, and the right of appeal.
“I have served on the disciplinary committee of the medical and dental council for over 13 years and they come with their lawyers. It is quasi judiciary, we take evidences, we take witness statement, we cross examine, even people appeal the decisions.
“So it is at the stage that when it is concluded finally that somebody can be pronounced as found guilty of a certain charge and therefore deserve the requisite sanctions,” he explained.
He further noted that the manner in which the findings were presented has contributed to public reaction and debate around the case.
