Dr Dazimbi Manika, who qualified in Zimbabwe in 1990, was struck off after appearing before a fitness to practice Panel back in October 2014, the report said.
It was proven in the initial hearing in 2014 that Dr Manika had altered the wording of a letter sent to him from the UK Border Agency on March 5, 2009, granting him discretionary leave to remain in the UK until March 5, 2012 by replacing “2012” with “2014”.
“The UK Border Agency provided the GMC with a copy of its original letter confirming the date of March 5, 2012,” the tribunal report said.
“During a raid on Dr Manika’s home, the UK Border Agency found a copy of the letter which had been altered to ‘March 5, 2014′
“It appeared that Dr Manika had used the altered letter to support his application for employment with an NHS Trust.”
He had applied as a locum speciality doctor at the Five Borough Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, which has since become the Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust.
The 2014 Panel was satisfied that Dr Manika’s actions in forging a letter, lying on a job application form, falsely stating that the UK Border Agency had his passport, and submitting a forged letter to the trust would be regarded as dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest people. The 2014 Panel was also satisfied that Dr Manika knew that by those standards he had acted dishonestly.
At his recent tribunal hearing to appeal the decision in February 2022, Dr Manika stated that he had done all he could since and provided all relevant documentation.
He stressed that he was not used to being dishonest and that it was only his desperate circumstances which made him act as he had in 2014. He said that he had been disturbed that he had provided information which he knew to be false, the tribunal heard.
He added that his actions were undertaken at a time of stress as his ‘Leave to Remain in the UK’ application had been rejected because an incorrect form was used.
“The Tribunal put it to Dr Manika that if he was allowed to work as a doctor, he would be subject to stress and asked him how he would deal with any difficult circumstances in the future,” the report said.
“Dr Manika told the tribunal that he has faced many challenges and always did the right thing. Dr Manika emphasised that his previous conduct was utterly wrong, he had behaved dishonestly and will never do so again.”
Ms Georgina Goring, representing the General Medical Council at the hearing, expressed concern over the lack of training done to address his misconduct as well as the time since he last practised as a doctor for at least five years.
The tribunal heard Dr Manika’s oral evidence about the circumstances in 2011 and 2012 which led to his dishonest behaviour.
It found his explanations to be credible and went some way to explain why he had acted as he did.
The Tribunal has acknowledged that Dr Manika has gained some insight into his dishonesty, although it appears that his awareness of his insight is only starting to develop at this late stage.