PETER CHRISTOPHER
peter.christopher@guardian.co.tt
Concern about the handling of the pending enquiry into Dr Avinash Sawh by the Medical Board continues to grow, after a doctor who filed a formal complaint against Sawh was told the board will only release documents related to the process after it is completed.
Sawh’s conduct came under scrutiny after a rant with an employee circulated on social media last November. During the recording, several apparent racist and offensive statements were made as he berated the female employee.
Sawh later apologised publicly for his statements.
Last month, Sawh requested three months to respond to the board’s enquiry in relation to that matter.
That request prompted lawyers for Dr Andre Alleyne to write to the board on March 24.
Alleyne was one of five people, including Health Minister Terrence Deyalsingh, who filed complaints against Sawh to the board.
Alleyne himself previously questioned the approach of the board in the matter, as he protested in February outside the board’s office in Mount Hope.
He made calls then for them to resign, as he expressed reservations about the lack of disciplinary action against Sawh.
In his letter, which was obtained by Guardian Media, Alleyne’s attorney Christophe Rodriguez wrote, “Our client’s anxieties surrounding the fairness of the conduct of the enquiry have been amplified by a recent newspaper report, a copy of which is hereto annexed, reporting that Dr Sawh requested 3 months to respond to a letter from the Medical Board dated 4th March 2021. Our client has not been provided with a copy of the March 4th Medical Board letter, nor the request for an extension of time made by Dr Sawh.”
Rodriguez then requested that in the interest of a fair hearing for all parties involved, that the documents shared between Sawh and the board be shared with his client, as well as an outline of the procedure to used for the enquiry as a timetable for the process.
Rodriguez said in the letter, “We strongly suggest that it is only if this enquiry is conducted fairly on all sides that any result obtained therefrom will be able to withstand public scrutiny, permit the guilty to be punished proportionately and the successful party to feel vindicated.”
The Medical Board was given 14 days to respond. They responded last Friday.
In the letter written by attorney Rajiv Persad, it was explained that in the board’s monthly meeting in February, they opted to make a fresh enquiry into the matter under Section 24 of the Medical Board Act.
The letter explained, “This decision having been made, correspondence was sent out to Dr Sawh through his attorney at law, initiating the inquiry process to afford him as fairness requires, an opportunity to respond to the material in the Council’s possession so that once Dr Sawh provides a response, the Council would then, based on his response, move on to consider whether a tribunal will be necessary or not.”
The letter confirmed, however, that up to April 14, the date of the board’s last regular monthly meeting, Sawh’s response had not been received.
As for Alleyne’s complaint, the letter stated, “The Medical Board Act exercising its own discretion that the complaint by Dr Alleyne will be dealt with immediately after the existing proceedings relative to Dr Sawh are completed.”
This decision was further explained in the document, “Such an approach, we think, is reasonable in light of the fact that (i) the Section 24 process has already been embarked upon by the Council and (ii) the subject matter between the ongoing inquiry and your client’s complaint appears to overlap.”
The letter then stated, “The Council is aware of your client’s complaint and will apprise you as the process moves on out of courtesy. When the process of this investigation is completed, the Council will certainly inform you of the result and at that point will invite you to indicate how you would wish for us to deal with your complaint.”
