Eye specialist accuses Medical Council of ‘xenophobic’ campaign 

…as he alleges regulator is trying to drive him out of practice 

Moorosi Tsiane 

Optometrist, Dr Hamisi Hamidu Chuwa, owner of Right to Sight Optometric Centre (Pty) Ltd, has dragged the Lesotho Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Council (LMDPC) to court, accusing the regulatory body of using “xenophobic” tactics to force qualified foreign doctors out of practice. 

Dr Chuwa is challenging the council’s refusal to renew his certificate of retention, warning that his licence to practise as an optometrist expires on 23 September 2026. 

He argues that failure to renew the certificate could effectively bring his practice to a halt, putting both his livelihood and the services provided to his patients at risk. 

In court papers filed at the High Court this past week, Dr Chuwa alleges that LMPDC officials have embarked on a deliberate campaign against expatriate medical practitioners, accusing the council of abusing its regulatory powers and acting in bad faith. 

“The xenophobic idea of putting expatriate doctors out of business in Lesotho is having prejudicial effects on my profession,” Dr Chuwa states. 

He further alleges that the campaign is being used by LMPDC officials “to secure a substantial, unmerited advantage of promoting their cronies at my expense”. 

Dr Chuwa has cited the Director General of Health Services, LMDPC, the Council on Higher Education (CHE) and Attorney General Advocate Rapelang Motsieloa KC as first to fourth respondents respectively in the application. 

The dispute centres on Dr Chuwa’s application for renewal of his certificate of retention, for which he says he paid M2000 on 27 February 2026, and submitted the required documentation. 

According to Dr Chuwa, LMDPC subsequently rejected the application, informing him that it was unsuccessful because of “invalid or incomplete documentation”. 

He argues, however, that he was never given an opportunity to respond to the alleged deficiencies before the decision was taken. 

“I applied for renewal of the certificate of retention and performed all what was required in that regard. I provided the requisite information,” he states. 

Dr Chuwa says the rejection is particularly troubling because, according to him, it is the first time since 2006 that his application has encountered such difficulties. 

The optometrist is also challenging CHE’s involvement in the verification and evaluation of his academic qualifications, arguing that the body has exceeded its statutory mandate. 

“CHE has no role to play looking in the way institutions have been modelled to vet qualifications leading to the level where Director General of Health Services approves the licence,” he states. 

He argues that his qualifications were already verified when he was admitted to practise in Lesotho, with the process involving diplomatic authorities and his university. 

Dr Chuwa says the attempt to subject his qualifications to another verification process raises questions about the powers being exercised by both LMDPC and CHE. 

He also accuses LMDPC of failing to provide a proper explanation for its decision, saying his attempts to resolve the dispute without litigation were unsuccessful. 

According to Dr Chuwa, his lawyers visited the LMDPC offices on three occasions seeking a response to a letter of demand. 

On each occasion, he says, they were allegedly told that the council’s lawyer was still considering the matter. 

“The non-response to my letter of demand must be perceived as a strategy not to provide answers for their irresponsible conduct and decision not to approve my application for the retention certificate,” he states. 

Dr Chuwa also makes an allegation about an encounter with LMPDC officials at his practice last year. 

He claims council officials “stormed” his office and demanded that he close the practice unless he employed a Mosotho optometrist. 

“Last year the members of LMDPC stormed my office and demanded me to close shop if I did not hire a Mosotho optometrist,” he alleges. 

Dr Chuwa says he asked for time to consider the demand, but alleges that the officials later returned accompanied by police officers, who demanded to see his work permit. 

He says the matter was subsequently taken to his lawyers and resolved at Police Headquarters. 

For Dr Chuwa, the latest refusal to renew his certificate represents a continuation of what he describes as discriminatory treatment of foreign professionals. 

He further claims that LMDPC members themselves have not had their qualifications verified by any official body constitutionally mandated to perform such functions. 

He alleges that the council has also introduced “new imaginary standards” without consulting affected practitioners. 

Dr Chuwa argues that the consequences extend beyond his personal interests, saying the dispute threatens the continued operation of his optometric practice and the patients who depend on his services. 

He points to support from the Ministry of Health, saying the Principal Secretary endorsed his work-permit renewal application on the basis that Lesotho depends on specialised and qualified expatriate doctors. 

He also invokes Parliament’s Social Cluster Committee, which he says has previously intervened in disputes involving foreign medical practitioners and ordered LMDPC to register integrative medical practitioners. 

“Their decisions to bar foreign doctors from practising in Lesotho is a serious administrative overreach that bears no intellectual justification,” he alleges. 

Dr Chuwa is asking the High Court to review and set aside the decision refusing his certificate of retention and to scrutinise the legality of the processes followed by LMDPC and CHE. 

He argues that the refusal was unlawful, irrational and motivated by bad faith, insisting that LMDPC does not have the power under the Lesotho Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Order 1970 to deprive him of his right to practise. 

With his licence due to expire on 23 September 2026, Dr Chuwa says the matter is urgent because failure to secure the retention certificate could effectively bring his practice to a halt. 

“The impending motion to restrict my practice by refusing the application for a certificate of retention is animated by all manner of ulterior motives and bad faith,” he states. 

The respondents had not yet filed their opposing papers by the time of going to print.