SLT Triumphs over MLS in Landmark Federal High Court Ruling on Clinical Practice

In a significant legal battle that has spanned several years, Science Laboratory Technology (SLT) private practitioners in Calabar have emerged victorious over the Medical Laboratory Scientists (MLS) in a case brought before the Federal High Court. The court's verdict, delivered on June 19th, has delivered a resounding defeat and humiliation to the MLS, as it declared that laboratory practice is not the exclusive domain of MLS. The judgment was based on the MLS's failure to provide any substantive proof or documentation prohibiting SLT from engaging in clinical practice.

The dispute between SLT and MLS dates back to 2019 when the case was first presented before the Federal High Court in Calabar. The crux of the matter centered around whether SLT professionals should be allowed to practice laboratory science clinically. The MLS, who asserted their monopoly over clinical practice, were unable to substantiate their claim with any concrete evidence or legal provisions.

Legal Framework:

The SLT practitioners relied on the NISLT Act 12 of 2003 to support their argument. This act grants SLT professionals the authority to engage in laboratory science and practice. On the other hand, the MLS drew support from the MLSCN Act 11 of 2003, which confers professional rights solely to MLS practitioners. However, despite the MLS's legal backing, the court ruling demonstrated that the scope of SLT is multidimensional, multidisciplinary, and multifaceted, with over 15 options for specialization. Furthermore, SLT graduates receive specialized training in their chosen fields, enhancing their qualifications and expertise.

Court Verdict:

The Federal High Court in Calabar delivered a landmark judgment in favor of SLT on June 19th. The court unequivocally stated that laboratory practice is not exclusive to MLS professionals, highlighting the inability of the MLS to produce any compelling evidence or documentation to prove otherwise. The ruling solidified the legitimacy of SLT professionals to engage in clinical laboratory science and practice.

Implications and Significance:

This court verdict carries far-reaching implications for both SLT and MLS professionals. It underscores the multidimensional nature of SLT and recognizes the diverse specializations within the field. By granting SLT practitioners the right to practice clinically, the ruling paves the way for increased collaboration and cooperation between SLT and MLS professionals. This synergy has the potential to significantly enhance the quality of laboratory services and healthcare delivery as a whole.

Moreover, the ruling serves as a rebuke to any perceived professional monopolies and reinforces the importance of evidence-based claims and legal provisions. It sets a precedent for future legal battles and challenges regarding professional practice rights within the laboratory science domain.

Conclusion:

The Federal High Court's recent judgment in favor of SLT practitioners against the MLS represents a resounding victory for SLT professionals and a significant setback for the MLS. By affirming the legitimacy of SLT's clinical practice and highlighting its multidimensional nature, the court has reinforced the importance of evidence and legal provisions in determining professional practice rights. This ruling opens doors for enhanced collaboration and specialization within the laboratory science field, ultimately benefiting healthcare services and patient care.

Article written by

Akpede Akpevwe BSLT, AISLT

Biomedical Science Technologist