An inquiry begins in Edinburgh
Public hearings have begun. They are taking place in Edinburgh. The subject is Sam Eljamel, a former surgeon whose work is now the focus of a statutory public inquiry. He was a neurosurgeon. His employer was NHS Tayside. For eighteen years, from his appointment in 1995 until he was finally suspended from practice in 2013, he operated on patients at Ninewells Hospital in Dundee. The opening of these formal proceedings marks the end of a long journey for the people who say they were harmed by him, a culmination which follows a years long campaign for public accountability.
The inquiry represents a critical moment. It did not come easily. The hearings in the Scottish capital are the result of years of pressure from former patients who demanded a full public examination of their treatment. They sought answers. This process is the result of that campaign. The surgeon at the centre of the case had a long and seemingly established career within the Scottish health service before the events that led to his eventual suspension in 2013, working for almost two decades at a single hospital.
He started in 1995. His tenure at Ninewells Hospital in Dundee continued until the summer of 2013. Action was taken then. He was suspended by the health board. This public process, convened years after that suspension, will now seek to establish a definitive account of his practice and the system which oversaw it for the entire eighteen year period. The central figure is Eljamel. The questions, however, extend far beyond one man.
Patients want answers. For many years, those answers were elusive. The start of public evidence hearings provides a formal, state sanctioned arena for a story that has, until now, been told through campaign groups and press reports. It moves the matter into a new phase. It is a legal process. The inquiry’s focus will be on the period between 1995 and 2013, covering the entire duration of Sam Eljamel’s employment as a consultant neurosurgeon with NHS Tayside. Patients wait for justice.
A career that ended in suspension
Sam Eljamel's career at NHS Tayside spanned nearly two decades. Eighteen years. He was appointed as a consultant neurosurgeon in 1995. He worked continuously at a single hospital, Ninewells in Dundee, for the whole of that time. Then it ended. His suspension in 2013 brought his long service to an abrupt halt, but the story of the allegations that precipitated that decision began long before. This is the period the inquiry will now examine. All of it. The inquiry must establish a timeline of what was known, by whom, and when.
The background to the case is contained within those eighteen years. From 1995 to 2013. The inquiry must chart the course of his employment with the health board and the emergence of complaints against him. Allegations of harm are central to the proceedings. The process will seek to understand the nature of the concerns which were being raised by patients and staff during his tenure. It was a long tenure. The inquiry has been asked to investigate why action was not taken sooner, a question that points directly at the management and oversight structures within NHS Tayside at the time.
A critical focus will be the gap. The time between the first expressions of concern and the eventual decision to suspend him from his duties. That decision was made in 2013. The inquiry has a specific remit to investigate the health board's response to any and all safety concerns raised about the surgeon before that date. It must determine if there was a pattern. It will ask if warnings were missed, or if they were ignored. The answers will be sought not only from patients but from within the records of the institution that employed him for almost two decades.
His downfall was not sudden. It came at the end of a long and complex history which the hearings must now unpick. The formal suspension by NHS Tayside in 2013 was the final act in his career in Scotland. It was a decisive move. But it came after years of problems. For the people affected, the suspension itself raised more questions than it answered, particularly concerning the health board's own role in monitoring a senior consultant. Why did it take so long? That is the question at the core of this entire process.
The surgeon’s long employment record presents a puzzle for Lord Brodie’s inquiry. A neurosurgeon remained in post for eighteen years. How could serious issues go unaddressed for so long within a major teaching hospital? That question goes beyond the actions of a single individual. It concerns the system itself. The inquiry will scrutinise the clinical governance and management processes at NHS Tayside which were in place throughout his employment. It is that system, its processes and its failures, which will be on trial in Edinburgh just as much as the disgraced surgeon himself.
The long road to a public hearing
This inquiry was not inevitable. It is the result of a long campaign. A very long campaign. The people harmed by Sam Eljamel had to fight for it against the initial wishes of the Scottish government, which had originally proposed a much less powerful form of investigation. That first offer was for an independent review. This was not what the former patients wanted. They rejected it.
The campaigners argued that only a full statutory public inquiry, established under the Inquiries Act 2005, would have the necessary legal powers to uncover the truth of what happened at NHS Tayside. An independent review, they said, would be toothless. It would be unable to compel witnesses to give evidence under oath, a critical power when scrutinising the actions of a major public body over a period spanning almost two decades. Patients and their families organised. They refused to cooperate with the lesser process, believing it was designed to limit scrutiny rather than enable it. They wanted accountability. They wanted answers.
Their campaign was persistent. It took place in the media and at the Scottish Parliament. The group of former patients, led by Jules Rose and Pat Kelly, were clear in their demand for a statutory footing that would give the investigation real authority. They met with ministers. They spoke to members of the Scottish Parliament from all parties. They explained repeatedly why a review would fail to deliver the comprehensive examination they felt their cases required. They argued that the institutional failures at NHS Tayside were as important as the actions of the surgeon himself, and only a judge led inquiry could properly examine that wider context. It was a difficult period. The government did not immediately concede.
Eventually, the political pressure became too great to ignore. Faced with a united patient group, cross party support for their cause, and a boycott of its own proposed review, the Scottish government changed its position. The health secretary Humza Yousaf announced in September 2022 that a public inquiry would be established. It was a significant reversal. This decision handed the campaigners precisely what they had asked for all along. It meant the process would be led by a judge and have the legal power to force the disclosure of documents and to summon any witness to give evidence. For the patients, this was the entire point. The inquiry provides a formal, legally robust arena where NHS Tayside’s management can be questioned directly.
What Lord Brodie will investigate
Lord Brodie will lead the investigation. He is a retired judge. His inquiry has been established under the Inquiries Act 2005, giving it the full legal authority of the courts to demand evidence and compel witnesses to testify under oath. This is not a simple review. It is a formal, judicial process. The powers are significant. They mean that individuals and the institution of NHS Tayside can be forced to provide a full account of their decisions, a power the patients believed was essential for discovering the truth. The process has real teeth. It will take place in Edinburgh.
The inquiry's terms of reference are wide. Lord Brodie will first examine the clinical practice of Sam Eljamel during his entire tenure at Ninewells Hospital, from 1995 until 2013. He will review patient cases. He will hear from those who were harmed. But the investigation extends far beyond the operating theatre, seeking to build a comprehensive picture of how the health board managed its consultant neurosurgeon. The inquiry has a specific remit to investigate the response of NHS Tayside to any concerns raised about Eljamel, including the handling of both internal complaints from staff and external complaints from patients. The delay is central.
This institutional focus is the core of the inquiry. It moves the spotlight from one man to the system that employed, managed and supervised him for nearly two decades. The question is one of governance. Lord Brodie is tasked with scrutinising the board’s management structures, its processes for ensuring patient safety, and the culture that existed within the surgical department at the Dundee hospital. He will assess whether systems for clinical oversight were adequate, if whistleblowers were listened to, and why repeated warnings did not result in earlier intervention. The inquiry seeks to understand a failure of process. It seeks accountability.
Upon completion of the hearings, Lord Brodie will produce a definitive report. This document will contain his factual findings. It will detail what happened. The report must also make recommendations. These will be directed first at NHS Tayside, but their implications are expected to be far wider, potentially influencing reforms to patient safety and clinical governance frameworks across NHS Scotland. The stated objective is to learn lessons to reduce the risk of future harm, ensuring a robust system is in place to identify and act on problems quickly. It is about prevention. The failure must not be repeated.
NHS Tayside faces scrutiny
NHS Tayside faces a period of intense examination. The institution is on trial. While the inquiry carries the name of one man, its primary function is to anatomise the actions, and the inactions, of the health board that employed him for eighteen years. Lord Brodie's investigation will place the board’s entire management structure under a microscope, from the consultants in the surgical department at Ninewells Hospital to the most senior executives responsible for clinical governance and the non executive directors who oversaw them. The core question is why the system failed. It is a question of accountability. The inquiry seeks to understand how repeated warnings from patients and staff over several years, including formal complaints and internal whistleblowing, did not prompt an earlier, more decisive response from those in charge of patient safety. This is about process. This is about culture. The health board’s reputation is now tied directly to the answers Lord Brodie uncovers about its past conduct and its capacity to manage its own senior staff.
The findings of this inquiry will not be confined to Dundee. They will echo far beyond. Any recommendations Lord Brodie makes for NHS Tayside are expected to be scrutinised by health boards across Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, because the issues of clinical governance and professional accountability are not unique to one hospital. The case exposes a potential vulnerability present in any large, complex organisation. It is the problem of how to effectively monitor and, if necessary, discipline a highly specialised and senior practitioner who holds a position of considerable autonomy and authority within a specific department. These are universal challenges. The Scottish government, which ultimately sanctioned the inquiry after sustained public pressure, will be compelled to consider whether the final report necessitates national policy changes to strengthen clinical oversight frameworks everywhere. The aim is to create a template for prevention. It is about stopping future harm.
One central figure will be absent from the proceedings in Edinburgh. The surgeon is not here. Sam Eljamel cannot be compelled to give evidence to Lord Brodie’s inquiry because he is no longer in the country. He is believed to be in Libya. His departure from Scotland after he was suspended by NHS Tayside in 2013 places him outside the jurisdiction of the Scottish authorities. Legal avenues to force his participation do not exist. This means the inquiry will proceed without the testimony of the man whose surgical practice is the reason for its existence, a situation that fundamentally shapes the nature of the investigation and the experience for his former patients. He will not answer questions. He will not face his accusers.
This absence creates a void. For the many patients harmed by his actions, the inquiry is the primary mechanism for truth and accountability, yet it is an incomplete one. They were denied a direct reckoning. The public hearings provide a crucial platform for their stories to be heard and officially recorded, some for the very first time in a formal setting, but they will not be able to confront the surgeon in person. They cannot ask him why. The focus therefore shifts decisively towards the institution. With the individual surgeon beyond reach, the responsibility of NHS Tayside becomes the only tangible subject for scrutiny and for potential sanction, a heavy burden for the current leadership of the health service in Dundee. It is the health board that must now answer for the entirety of the failure, both its own and that of the employee it could not or would not control for almost two decades. The board must explain. Accountability must be found.
The inquiry continues its work. The process will be long. Lord Brodie will hear evidence for many months before retreating to write his definitive report on what happened at NHS Tayside. That report, and the institutional response to it, will be the final measure of justice available to the patients. The story is not over.
Sources. BBC News Scotland: Eljamel: Public evidence hearings begin into rogue surgeon. Evening Standard: Inquiry into disgraced brain surgeon Sam Eljamel to begin public hearings.
Analysis. Drafted with AI assistance from the sources listed above and reviewed by an editor before publication. Jnews links to the organisations it writes about.
