Mohammed Elmajee
Introduction
Dr Mohammed Elmajee is a doctor registered with the General Medical Council (GMC) who was suspended from the medical register for twelve months by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal in August 2026, after it found that he had kissed and attempted to kiss a colleague without her consent on two occasions and that this conduct amounted to sexually motivated harassment and an abuse of his senior position. The tribunal sat between 17 and 28 August 2026 and published its decision on 28 August 2026 .
Background Information
Elmajee worked with the colleague who complained about him in a workplace senior enough that the tribunal treated his seniority as an aggravating feature of what happened. The conduct spanned more than a year: a first incident in December 2022 and a second in September 2023, with a WhatsApp message of a sexual nature sent in between. The case reached the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, which decides fitness-to-practise cases brought by the GMC about doctors in the UK, at a substantive hearing that considered whether the seniority he held over the colleague made the conduct worse; it found that it did .
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated (regulatory), not a criminal case. The findings below were made by a Medical Practitioners Tribunal applying the civil standard of proof in a fitness-to-practise process. They are not a criminal conviction, and nothing in the fetched record establishes any prosecution.
The tribunal considered allegations that on two occasions, in December 2022 and September 2023, Elmajee attempted to kiss a colleague without her consent, that he sent her a sexually motivated WhatsApp message, and that his conduct amounted to sexual harassment and an abuse of seniority .
The tribunal found that the two incidents of non-consensual kissing or attempted kissing amounted to sexually motivated harassment and an abuse of his more senior position. It also found the WhatsApp message was sexually motivated and an abuse of seniority, but stopped short of finding that the message by itself constituted sexual harassment. A separate allegation that he had lunged at the colleague was not proved .
On sanction, the tribunal found Elmajee had shown insufficient insight or remediation and identified what it described as a significant risk of repetition. It weighed whether to erase him from the register entirely and decided against it: it found erasure disproportionate, recognising that the misconduct was potentially remediable and that no serious harm had been established. It imposed a twelve-month suspension with an immediate order so the suspension took effect at once, and directed a review hearing before the order ends .
Public Reaction and Consequences
The concrete consequence is the twelve-month suspension with the immediate order attached, which removed Elmajee from practice from late August 2026 pending the review. The case is recorded in MedicWatch’s listing of doctors suspended in 2026; no public statement from Elmajee, the colleague or any employer appears in the fetched record beyond the tribunal’s own determination .
Because the tribunal found insufficient insight and a significant risk of repetition, the case reads as unresolved rather than closed: the review hearing will reassess whether he can safely return. Nothing in the fetched record establishes any criminal charge arising from the same conduct, and none should be inferred from this page .
Current Status
Elmajee is a suspended doctor under a twelve-month order imposed on 28 August 2026, in force immediately, with a review hearing directed before the order expires. The tribunal’s decision to reject erasure while finding a significant risk of repetition places his return in the hands of the next panel: if the review finds the same gaps in insight, a longer order or erasure remains available .
Impact on Their Career/Life
A sexually motivated harassment finding with an abuse-of-seniority finding attached is among the more damaging entries a doctor’s regulatory record can carry, and it will surface in every future job application, revalidation and appraisal. The tribunal’s own reasoning gives both directions: the misconduct was serious enough for a year away from practice, yet considered potentially remediable, which keeps a path back to the register open if the review is satisfied .