Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service determination — substantive hearing
MPTS tribunal suspends Dr Moboladale Ojutiku for 12 months over dishonest private work in NHS hours
A Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service panel has suspended consultant obstetrician Dr Moboladale Ojutiku for 12 months, finding he dishonestly carried out paid private clinics over almost two years while he was contracted and paid to be undertaking NHS duties at his hospital trust.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 15 June 2026 · Updated 8 July 2026
Suspension (suspended from practice) — 1 year
Added to MedicWatch: 8 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 Moboladale Ojutiku, doctor (General Medical Council 4086068).
Decision date: 15 June 2026 · Hearing started 26 May 2026 and ended 15 June 2026
In plain English
The MPTS tribunal found that Dr Moboladale Ojutiku's fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. It found that, over about two years, he dishonestly carried out paid private clinics during NHS contracted hours he was scheduled to spend on Trust duties, receiving payment from both. The tribunal found the dishonesty serious and his insight limited, suspended his registration for 12 months and directed a review before it ends.
Charges
The Allegation, found proved, was that while employed as a Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist by Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust, Dr Ojutiku undertook private clinics at Chartwell Private Hospital for Ramsay Health Care on numerous occasions between April 2017 and May 2019, during hours he was contracted to the Trust, and received payment for that work while also being paid by the Trust for the same periods. The Tribunal found he knew that during his contracted hours he was not permitted to work for another provider and had to work onsite, that he had not obtained permission to do either, and that his conduct was dishonest.
Findings
The Tribunal found that Dr Ojutiku's dishonest conduct amounted to serious misconduct falling towards the higher end of the spectrum of seriousness, being persistent, premeditated and financially motivated over a prolonged period, with personal gain of approximately £24,000. It found his insight remained limited and developing because he continued to characterise the matter as time-shifting rather than dishonesty. The Tribunal concluded that patient safety was not engaged but that there was a current and ongoing high risk to public confidence in the profession and to proper professional standards, and that his fitness to practise is impaired by reason of misconduct. It suspended his registration for 12 months and directed a review; no immediate order was imposed.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Mitigating factors
The Tribunal accepted contextual matters in Dr Ojutiku's favour: an extensive professional career spanning several decades; that he had continued to work for the Trust for approximately four years after the conduct came to light without further similar concerns; that he had worked extremely hard and frequently gone above and beyond in the pursuit of patient care; and positive patient and colleague feedback and testimonials. It considered these carried some weight but did not materially reduce the seriousness of the misconduct.
Aggravating factors
The Tribunal found the misconduct fell towards the higher end of the spectrum of seriousness. The dishonesty occurred over a prolonged period of approximately two years and involved persistent, repeated conduct within Dr Ojutiku's professional working life. It was covert and financially motivated, resulting in personal financial gain of approximately £24,000. The Tribunal considered the conduct was premeditated and intentional, demonstrated a reckless disregard for professional standards, and that as a senior consultant expected to lead by example, his departure from the standards had additional impact.
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.