Doctor’s Bid Falls Short as High Court Rules Challenge Premature

The High Court has dismissed Dr. Seleman Saidi’s constitutional challenge against a professional ban over his refusal to authorise blood transfusions, ruling the case premature (image source)

A Harare doctor disciplined for refusing to authorise blood transfusions on religious grounds has failed to overturn a professional ban after the High Court found his constitutional challenge premature and struck the application off the roll.

Dr. Seleman Saidi, a registered medical practitioner, was found guilty of unprofessional conduct after declining to approve blood transfusions because he believes blood is sacred. He challenged the disciplinary sanction in the High Court, arguing that his faith should not cost him a practising licence.

Justice Samuel Deme dismissed the constitutional application, ruling that Dr. Saidi should first have exhausted the internal appeals provided under the Health Professions Act before seeking constitutional relief.

The High Court emphasised the doctrine of exhaustion of internal remedies, noting that constitutional proceedings filed before administrative or statutory appeal channels are pursued are liable to be struck out as premature. The judge’s decision focused on procedural compliance rather than engaging deeply with the substantive clash between professional duties and religious conscience.

Colleagues who attended the disciplinary proceedings described a tribunal that framed the issue as one of patient safety and professional obligations. A hospital staff member involved in the case said the tribunal repeatedly stressed the primacy of accepted medical standards when a patient’s life is at risk. The account underscored how the professional regulators weighed duty of care against individual belief in reaching the ban.

Medical ethics specialists say healthcare professionals have a duty to put patient welfare first, and that conscientious objections must be managed without compromising care. An ethics advisor noted that personal religious convictions do not automatically exempt clinicians from providing emergency interventions or ensuring timely alternative arrangements for patients who require transfusion. The advisor recommended clear institutional policies that balance conscience protection with patient rights.

Legal analysts warn that the ruling reinforces procedural pathways in professional regulation and signals that courts expect practitioners to use statutory appeals before seeking constitutional remedies. The decision may prompt medical councils and hospitals to tighten guidelines on conscientious objection, require advance notice of objections, and mandate referral protocols to prevent care delays.

Dr. Saidi’s ban remains in place while internal appeal options are still available. The case raises enduring tensions between freedom of religion and professional duty in healthcare and points to the need for clearer regulatory frameworks to manage conscience claims without jeopardising patient safety.