'Surprise' witness delays Noakes case

(File photo) Tim Noakes speaks at the 17th World Congress of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology at the CTICC. Picture: Willem Law

(File photo) Tim Noakes speaks at the 17th World Congress of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology at the CTICC. Picture: Willem Law

Published Nov 30, 2015

Share

Cape Town - Professor Tim Noakes's professional conduct hearing got off to a slow start on Monday morning.

The Health Professions Council of SA (HPCSA), which is holding the hearing, wanted to introduce a "surprise " witness.

Hardly two hours after the proceedings started the tribunal had to adjourn to allow the professional conduct committee to make a decision on whether to allow Stellenbosch University bioethicist Professor Willem Pienaar as a witness.

Noakes's legal team objected to a new witness being called, saying that such move would not only delay the case, but it would prejudice Noakes who had had a "a cloud hanging over him" since HPCSA charged him in February.

Pienaar has been called by the HPCSA at the 11th hour to provide "expert evidence" on whether Noakes acted ethically when he gave a dietary advice on social media.

Noakes is being charged by the council for unprofessional conduct after he advised a breastfeeding mother, Pippa Leenstra to wean her baby on to a low carbohydrate, high fat diet (LCHF) last year.

Proforma complainant Advocate Meshak Mapolisa told the committee on Monday morning that he wanted to introduce Pienaar after the qualifications of Professor Salome Kruger as an ethicist were questioned by the defence during cross examination last week.

Kruger is one of three expert witnesses that questioned Noakes advice, labelling it as inappropriate.

 

"I'm bringing a new expert because during cross examination it was brought up that the expert we had was not regarded as an expert. I'm bringing him to close that gap. I'm calling this particular witness at this late stage because of what transpired during cross examination," Mapolisa said.

But Noakes advocate Michael van der Nest objected, arguing that Mapolisa introduced the "surprise "witness much later, giving the defence no time to prepare for cross examination. He said Mapolisa also breached the regulations of the HPCSA, which required for supplementary documents on a witness to be submitted at least 7 days before the hearing.

In this case the defence only submitted information on Pienaar for the first time on Saturday night and again on Sunday night, making it impossible for the defence to prepare.

He said "it is like the council doesn't want to examine Professor Noakes ".

Not only were delays unfair to Noakes, who had to deal with fresh accusations that had been widely eported in the media, but it caused distress to him emotionally, to his family and his professional reputation.

"He's been sitting here ready to defend himself and to testify. Professor Noakes deserves the right to answer those accusations," he said

UPDATE: The committee's chairwoman Joan Adams has ruled in favour of Mapolisa.

Cape Argus 

Related Topics: