Health Professions Council to decide by end of January on inquiry into Tlaleng Mofokeng.
- Dr Tlaleng Mofokeng has received threats and hate mail for posts made on social media about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and UN Watch founder Hillel Neuer.
- After a complaint by the South African Zionist Federation, the Health Professions Council sanctioned her for unprofessional conduct and fined her R10,000.
- But Mofokeng, who is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to health, has appealed the ruling.
- The council now has until 28 January to decide whether to proceed with a full inquiry.
In April, a nondescript envelope arrived at the office of South African doctor Tlaleng Mofokeng at Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law in Washington, DC, where she’s a senior scholar.
Mofokeng, who has been the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to health for nearly six years, was on an official trip to Thailand when the envelope arrived.
The envelope, opened by an assistant, contained human excrement on a square of toilet paper and a typed note, which mentioned Mofokeng’s work on Palestine using “extremely hateful rhetoric” and “disgusting, racist language”, according to her colleague Matthew Kavanaugh, an associate professor and director at the Centre for Global Health Policy & Politics.
The letter could have been mailed from any New York City postal office or collection box, and the Georgetown police couldn’t trace exactly where or who it came from, says Kavanaugh.
Meanwhile, a campaign against Mofokeng was already underway back home. Days before the letter arrived, pro-Israel advocacy group the South African Zionist Federation (SAZF) had lodged a complaint with the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) over social media comments Mofokeng had made about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a staunch supporter, Hillel Neuer.
[https://www.bizcommunity.com/article/concourt-judgment-balancing-on-fine-line-between-freedom-of-expression-and-right-to-privacy-364698a | embed]]
In an X post on 19 January, which was since deleted, Mofokeng commented “f*ck him” in response to an Al Jazeera report that Netanyahu had ordered the Israeli military not to begin implementing a ceasefire in Gaza until Hamas had provided the names of Israeli captives to be released.
Neuer, who leads a pro-Israel nonprofit called UN Watch, then called on the UN to discipline Mofokeng for her comments. In two subsequent posts on X on 20 January, Mofokeng referred to Neuer as a “white man” and “evil scum”.
In a complaint to the HPCSA, the SAZF argued that Mofokeng’s posts breached social media ethics rules and that her actions did not meet South African standards for a doctor.
A preliminary committee of inquiry at the Health Professionals Council of SA sanctioned her for the unprofessional conduct in October. She was ordered to pay a R10,000 fine. In a statement on its website, the SAZF commended the HPCSA and said Mofokeng’s conduct reflects a pattern of anti-Israel bias among UN officials.
But Mofokeng has appealed the ruling.
The matter will be referred to a more formal professional conduct inquiry. South Africa’s Health Professions Act now gives the HPCSA the power to suspend Mofokeng’s licence until a final decision is made, though it has not done so.
The HPCSA has until 28 January 2026 to decide whether to proceed with a full inquiry, says Khanyisa Mapipa, a lawyer with Section27, who is representing Mofokeng.
Once the formal inquiry is underway, the committee is not limited to its initial finding of a minor transgression, which means Mofokeng could be accused of serious misconduct and lose her medical license, says Mapipa.
Mapipa says they plan on taking High Court action should the HPCSA inquiry not rule in Mofokeng’s favour.
Mofokeng has received support from people worldwide. One statement was signed by more than 150 people – including Archbishop Thabo Makgoba, Elinor Sisulu, researcher Linda-Gail Bekker – and local organisations such as Treatment Action Campaign and Open Secrets.
The statement accuses the HPCSA of repeating the failure of the apartheid-era South African Medical and Dental Council, which excused doctors who covered up the crimes of the security police, notably those who ignored signs of brain damage in anti-apartheid activist Steve Biko. Biko was murdered by the security police, and the two district surgeons in charge of his care did not refer him to a hospital.
“South Africa’s medical regulators once failed Steve Biko. They must not fail Tlaleng Mofokeng,” wrote the signatories to the statement.
Mofokeng’s legal team argues that the HPCSA’s move to discipline Mofokeng is a breach of constitutional free speech protections as well as international conventions and local diplomacy laws that protect UN officials from legal and administrative processes brought against them as a result of their work.
They argue Mofokeng’s comments fall squarely within constitutionally protected speech, regardless of whether she used impolite language.
A letter from Federica Donati is included in Section27’s submission. Donati is in charge of special procedures at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
The letter explains that Mofokeng is considered an expert on mission for the UN under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and that she must be afforded immunity from “legal process of every kind” for words spoken or written and acts done by them in the course of the performance of their mission. South Africa has formally adopted this convention as a domestic law, which means it is legally binding.
SAZF national spokesperson Rolene Marks told GroundUp that no title excuses behaviour that brings the medical profession into disrepute and that medical ethics is separate from diplomatic privilege.
“UN diplomatic immunity is not a cloak for professional misconduct,” said Marks. “Dr Tlaleng Mofokeng was found guilty of unprofessional conduct by the HPCSA and fined accordingly, a ruling that speaks to her actions as a South African doctor, not her position at the United Nations. To suggest that a UN appointment can nullify a domestic ethical sanction is legally baseless and ethically indefensible.”
The HPCSA did not respond to GroundUp’s queries.
This article was originally published on GroundUp.
© 2025 GroundUp. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
