Special Hearings — Health Sector Hearings — 1997-06-17

DR RANDERA: Thank you Mr Prinsloo.  If I can just start off by asking a few questions Sir of both of you.  This morning we have heard a great deal and it's often about what happened to Mr Biko.  Can you explain to us how it's possible that two different inquiries under the auspices of the same body could reach such diverse conclusions, i.e. that the Committee of Preliminary Inquiry in 1980 said no further action should be taken, and then in 1985 those doctors were reprimanded and one of them was actually charged with disgraceful conduct?

LEN BECKER: Thank you Chairman.  The position is that, as Mr Prinsloo explained, that the initial handling of a complaint by the Council is done by a Committee of Preliminary Inquiry.  That Committee consisted of some Council members and some outside members.  In this instance these members availed themselves of, as Mr Prinsloo mentioned, the opinion of outside independent practitioners who had access to the evidence, the court record etc.  And on the strength of what they received from the court records and on the information they received from these practitioners that Committee came to the conclusion that no further action should be taken.
 However, when eventually the inquiry was held, that was a completely different body in a different Council.  Remember the Council's terms of office stretch in five year terms, or used to.  So that was - one Council from 1980 to 1985 and then new Council from 1985 onwards.  So that when eventually this inquiry reached the stage where it came before Council there was a completely new Council with new members, and that Council then came to the conclusion that the practitioners were in fact guilty.
 I do not find it such a strange occurrence because I think this is something which happens in our courts quite often, that people will appeal against the sentence and a senior judge will come to a different conclusion as to what was the decision taken by a lower court.  Peoples' opinions and peoples' perspectives of what has happened will sometimes differ.
 I would just like to mention, whilst I am dealing with this case, and the punishment that was meted out to Dr Tucker, it was mentioned here earlier today that very mild punishments were decided on for these people.  Of course the Council has got no heavier penalty than to strike a person's name off the register, and that was done in the case of Dr Tucker.
 In the case of Dr Lang the law at the time specified that if somebody is cautioned and reprimanded by a Disciplinary Committee the Council itself could not change that finding or that penalty, and therefore in the case of Dr Lang, it's (...indistinct) that I cannot say whether the Council would have changed it if they had the powers to do so.  But those are the facts of the matter at the time.

DR RANDERA: Dr Becker can I just come to the question of detainees.

LEN BECKER: I didn't hear that.

DR RANDERA: I just want to come to the question of detainees, and the Council's response over a period of time.  In your own submission you say that in 1985 an ad hoc committee was formed.  Clearly if we look at the period that we are examining, 1960 to 1994 the first person to die in detention was someone called Luks Martin Gudle(?) in 1963 in the Pretoria Central Prison.  Many others have died subsequently.  In fact at the inquest held into the death of Ahmed Timol the magistrate recommended that district surgeons examine people very carefully during the time that they are in prison.
 The Council seems to have taken a long time.  I mean given that your objective, one of your objectives is to do with - in the promotion of the health of the population of the Republic, the Council seems to have taken a great deal of time responding to this particular situation.   Would you like to comment on that?

LEN BECKER: Yes.  One of the weaknesses that we have in our system is that the Council has not got a force of, a police force or an inspection force to go around and to evaluate situations in prisons or in hospitals or wherever.  Council reacts to submissions made to them or complaints lodged with Council.
 So I can start off firstly with the mention of the persons, the names you've mentioned, I don't know about those cases, and whether they were in fact ever reported to Council.  I am not sure that those deaths in detention were associated with medical treatment of prisoners, or whether those were simply a case of torture etc by police.  However, Mr Prinsloo should be able to give us some information if he has that, of whether those cases were reported to Council.
 However, to come back then to the question you asked that the Council took a long time to react.  That is correct.  Council did not react timeously and should have been aware from Press reports or from other sources about what was happening with detainees.  
 However, as Mr Prinsloo has said, the Council has for a long time been somewhat confined in its view of its own activities in that the Act specifies the Council should maintain standards of education and standards of conduct of practitioners, and the others are sort-of attached to that, and the Council concerned itself mainly with those two aspects of the activities.  And that is a shortcoming, we admit that.  Council should have been more pro-active in that respect.
 Perhaps we could ask Mr Prinsloo if he has any information regarding the persons you have mentioned.

NICO PRINSLOO: I couldn't establish from the Council's records that those cases were referred to Council.

DR RANDERA: Dr Becker observers have said that institutes, organisations played significant roles in the production and reproduction of apartheid, I don't want you to answer a question relating to that, but I want to go back to a submission made by the Nationalist Party.  The Nationalist Party talk about different phases in their development and actually talk about 1978 as being the beginning of a period of reform.  We've seen and heard today from Dr Ratemane, Dr Moosa, how few Black professionals were trained in this country.  I know in your submission you say that when the Act was passed in 1957 you were asked to make comments but you did not do so.
 Can we hear from you whether there was, given that there was this reform taking place in the social milieu that I think it's you who referred to that in your document, why it is that the Council did not take more of a pro-active step, because you must have been getting these figures on a yearly basis as to who was registered in South Africa?  And yet even when it comes to the question of separate facilities that many doctors practice in the country, it was only 1994 that a firm decision was made.

LEN BECKER: The question regarding the training of medico-practitioners I think we have made the statement earlier that Council should have reacted at the time, which it did not.  It subsequently also had the opportunity and I cannot answer the question as to why it did not because it was never brought up by members of Council, or the Council didn't receive any requests from outside bodies to address the matter.  So that definitely did not take place and I think in retrospect it was a mistake on behalf of the Council not to have done that.
 As far as the training of doctors was concerned it's a more difficult matter for us to assess because we had an analysis here today of the numbers of Black doctors being trained in South Africa.  On our registers we've got no distinction between doctors.  So everybody who is registered as a doctor and there is no way that we can give you accurate figures except by trying to tie the name to a face, but there's no classification in our register as to what race a doctor belongs to.  So we don't have those figures which were given to us today.