A right-of-reply opinion piece sharply criticizes Dr Shuaib Manjra's argument defending Dr Tlaleng Mofokeng against a Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) ruling on unprofessional conduct. The author argues that Manjra's focus on linguistic context undermines professional accountability. It emphasizes that the HPCSA's decision upholds standards of dignity in healthcare.
Dr Shuaib Manjra, a medical specialist registered with the HPCSA and chair of the Health Justice Initiative, recently published an opinion piece claiming the council erred in finding Dr Tlaleng Mofokeng guilty of unprofessional behaviour. He attributes the ruling to a misunderstanding of the linguistic context of her social media remarks, which included vulgar, inflammatory, and discriminatory language.
The responding article, published on November 12, 2025, in Daily Maverick's Opinionista section, dismisses Manjra's defense as bewildering and circular. It argues that professional ethics are not negotiable based on context, particularly when a doctor's public statements involve racist and inflammatory invective. The author stresses that the HPCSA's role is to protect the integrity of the medical profession, not to interpret language like a poetry critic.
Manjra frames the ruling as a suppression of free speech and an attack on Mofokeng's activism. However, the critique counters that professions like medicine impose limits on public behavior to maintain decorum, regardless of political stance. Freedom of expression does not permit vilifying or dehumanizing others.
The HPCSA conducted a thorough investigation over several months, corresponding with Mofokeng's legal representatives and assessing her conduct under Regulation 4(9) of the Health Professions Act. The final finding was unprofessional conduct, not a provisional decision.
The author accuses Manjra of selective accountability, noting he would likely demand action if similar language targeted other groups like Palestinians, migrants, or women. Defending such conduct, the piece argues, corrodes public trust in healthcare and belittles the HPCSA's mandate.
Manjra's claim of a 'dangerous precedent' for free thought is reversed: true danger lies in unchecked hatred from professionals, which erodes faith in institutions. The ruling reinforces that being a doctor entails public trust and professionalism, even in political disagreements.
Overall, the response calls Manjra's article unconvincing, confusing free speech with freedom from standards and ethics with ideology. It hails the HPCSA's action as a victory for common sense.