Court Authorises "The DNA Man" Tinashe Mugabe To Continue With His Work
Tinashe Mugabe, known as The DNA Man, has won a case in which he took the Health Professions Authority Zimbabwe (HPAZ) to court for attempting to ban his TV show, The Closure DNA.
Mugabe will now do his shows without any obstacles after he was cleared by High court judge Justice Joseph Mafusire, according to NewZimbabwe.
Mugabe had sued HPAZ together with the Medical Laboratory and Clinical Scientists Council Zimbabwe (MCAZ) after the two organisations complained he was unqualified to issue DNA test results.
He filed a High Court application through Global Parentage Services (Private) Limited t/a Global DNA Zimbabwe.
Mugabe argued the two had no right to suspend his operations because Global DNA his company is not a medical entity and is not governed by their rules and regulations.
Mafusire upheld his arguments ruling the presenter was on track.
The judge nullified the regulatory boards’ move stating they should not have forced Mugabe to register as a health institution in the first place. Ruled Mafusire:
The conclusion reached in this judgment, that the applicant (Global DNA ) is not a health institution within the meaning of that term in the Act, puts paid to any other point of contention in this matter. It becomes unnecessary to render a determination on them. The respondents (authority boards) simply exercised powers that the Act does not give them.
It may well be that the applicant’s activities require proper regulation. But if there should exist some other law providing for such regulation, it has not been pointed out to the court. The Act is certainly no law.
However, it would be manifestly contradictory to grant the first leg of the second prayer, namely that the cancellation of the applicant’s registration certificates was void.
If it is not a health institution, then none of the requirements of health institutions as prescribed by the Health Professions Act including registering with the authority boards applies to it.
Mugabe had argued that his company was a mere sample collection site.
He also said the company did not run the DNA tests itself but rather engaged laboratories who tested the samples.
He had also argued that the initial registration last year was a result of undue pressure from the board.
The respondents had argued that the DNA company was a health institution within the meaning of the Act and was supposed to register with HPAZ.
