The President of the Ghana Medical Association (GMA), Prof. Ernest Yorke, has expressed reservations about the wording and conclusions contained in the report on the death of Charles Amissah.

He argues that the committee lacked the authority to make findings that could be construed as guilt declarations.

The investigative committee, chaired by Agyemang Badu Akosa, concluded that failures within the emergency healthcare system, rather than the accident itself, resulted in the death of the 29-year-old engineer.

According to the report, delays in treatment and repeated referrals between health facilities contributed significantly to the outcome, leading to disciplinary measures against certain health professionals involved in the case.

Prof. Yorke, however, maintained that he would not have used the expression “medical negligence” in relation to the committee’s findings, stressing that such a determination falls outside the remit of an investigative body.

He explained that such committees are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial institutions and therefore cannot find individuals guilty of misconduct.

“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 stated.

The GMA President further noted that disciplinary processes within professional regulatory bodies, such as the Medical and Dental Council, are more rigorous and provide room for legal representation, examination of evidence, witness testimony and appeals.

Speaking on Channel One TV on Monday, May 11, Prof. Yorke said he had served on the disciplinary committee of the Medical and Dental Council for more than 13 years and understood the extensive procedures involved before a person could formally be found culpable.

“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-judicial; we take evidence, we take witness statements, we cross-examine, and 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 deserves the requisite sanctions,” he explained.

He added that the wording used in presenting the committee’s conclusions may have fuelled public criticism and intensified debate surrounding the case.