Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
Suspended from practice — 9 months
The regulator’s term: suspension
What does “suspended from practice” mean?
A suspension is a fixed-term pause on the right to practise. The practitioner cannot work in the regulated profession during the suspension. At the end of the period the suspension may be extended, replaced with another sanction, or lifted on review.
Concerning John Akumabor, doctor (General Medical Council 4639174).
Decision date: 23 February 2026 · Hearing started 12 January 2026 and ended 23 February 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr John Akumabor's fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct. The tribunal found that he continued to work as a GP at Sudbury Surgery between May and September 2024 after the GMC had withdrawn his licence to practise, receiving about £20,000 in pay, and that his actions were dishonest. He admitted the allegation in full. The tribunal ordered a nine-month suspension with a review hearing, and imposed an immediate order so the suspension takes effect at once.
Charges
On 23 May 2024 Dr Akumabor was informed by the GMC by letter and email that his licence to practise had been withdrawn; that he must not work in any role which requires a licence to practise; and that if he was working in such a role he must stop immediately. Between 23 May 2024 and 4 September 2024 he worked at Sudbury Surgery as a General Practitioner, knowing that he did not have a licence and that one was required, and received approximately £20,000 in pay. His actions were dishonest. All allegations were admitted and found proved.
Findings
The Tribunal found that Dr Akumabor's behaviour amounted to serious misconduct, breaching paragraphs 81, 84, 98, 100 and 101 of Good Medical Practice (2024). The dishonesty was persistent over more than three months, resulted in significant financial gain, undermined the regulatory system and misled patients, his employer and his indemnity insurer. The Tribunal placed the seriousness at the higher end of the spectrum. While Dr Akumabor showed genuine insight and had begun remediation, the Tribunal concluded that practical accountability measures were still in their infancy and a risk of repetition remained. His fitness to practise was found to be impaired by reason of misconduct, with all three parts of the overarching objective engaged.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
More than 20 years of clinical service to the NHS with no previous fitness-to-practise history; positive testimonial from Dr D and supportive comments from patients and colleagues; full admissions and cooperation with the regulatory proceedings; genuine insight and a written reflective statement; CPD and an ethics course completed; personal context including burnout, family pressures and cultural responsibilities as eldest son.
Aggravating factors
Dishonesty carried out within professional practice; persistent and repeated behaviour over a prolonged period; reckless disregard for patient safety and professional standards; significant financial benefit of approximately £20,000; deliberately misleading patients and the employer about licensing status; undermining a system designed to protect the public.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.