Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
MPTS tribunal suspends Dr Ahmed Abdelghani for four months over false training certificates
A Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service panel has suspended surgeon Dr Ahmed Abdelghani for four months after he admitted dishonestly submitting five certificates for training courses he had not attended across three annual appraisals, having gained no benefit from doing so.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 2 July 2026 · Updated 7 July 2026
Suspension (suspended from practice) — 4 months
Added to MedicWatch: 7 July 2026Report a correction
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 Ahmed Abdelghani, doctor (General Medical Council 6050889).
Decision date: 2 July 2026 · Hearing started 29 June 2026 and ended 2 July 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Ahmed Abdelghani's fitness to practise was impaired by reason of misconduct. He admitted that, across three appraisals between 2021 and 2023, he submitted five certificates for training courses he had not attended, and that this was dishonest. The tribunal found the dishonesty was repeated but that he had shown significant insight and remediation and gained no benefit. It suspended his registration for four months.
Charges
It was alleged, and Dr Abdelghani admitted, that in three of his appraisals covering the period 2021 to 2023 he submitted a total of five certificates of attendance in his name for training courses that he did not attend, that he knew he had not attended the training and should not submit such certificates, and that his actions were dishonest. He admitted the entirety of the allegation, which was found proved.
Findings
The Tribunal found Dr Abdelghani's fitness to practise impaired by reason of misconduct. It found his dishonesty was within his professional role, repeated over three appraisals and premeditated, placing the seriousness on the border between medium and high. It noted he had gained no financial or professional benefit, caused no harm to patients, had a long career with no previous probity concerns, and had demonstrated genuine insight and significant remediation. It assessed the risk to public protection as medium.
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.