Tawanda Lovejoy Chivima

Introduction

Tawanda Lovejoy Chivima is a registered mental health nurse who was struck off the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) register following a decision dated 13 August 2026. An NMC Investigating Committee found that his entry on the register had been fraudulently procured and incorrectly made, because he failed to declare four criminal convictions — all of them driving-related — on his online revalidation application in September 2021. Chivima admitted the charges, and the committee directed the Registrar to remove his entry from the register under Article 26(7) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001. It is a regulatory outcome resting on his own admissions, not a criminal conviction for fraud.

Background Information

Chivima was registered with the NMC as a mental health nurse, holding registration number 10F1833E on Sub Part 1 of the register, the part that records nurses entitled to practise in the United Kingdom.

On 11 March 2020, he was convicted at North and East Hertfordshire Magistrates Court of four offences: taking a motor vehicle without consent, contrary to section 12(1) of the Theft Act 1968; driving whilst disqualified, contrary to section 103(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988; using a handheld mobile phone or device while driving, contrary to regulation 110(1) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986; and using a vehicle while uninsured, contrary to section 143(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The determination also records that there had been similar findings against him in 2015, a fact that later limited the weight the 2026 committee gave to evidence in his favour.

Revalidation is the NMC’s process for renewing a nurse’s registration. Nurses complete an application, in Chivima’s case an online form, declaring matters relevant to their fitness to remain on the register, including any criminal convictions. The system depends on the applicant’s honesty: the regulator does not independently verify each declaration, so an undeclared conviction means the renewal decision rests on false information.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated (regulatory). The findings in this section rest on Chivima’s own admissions, found proved by an NMC Investigating Committee — a regulatory determination that his register entry was fraudulently procured, not a criminal conviction for fraud.

The case was brought as one of incorrect and fraudulent entry. The charge was that on his online revalidation application form dated 3 September 2021, Chivima did not declare the four convictions recorded against him on 11 March 2020 at North and East Hertfordshire Magistrates Court, and that by leaving them undeclared his entry on Sub Part 1 of the NMC register was fraudulently procured and/or incorrectly made. Charges 1a to 1d were found proved by his admissions.

The Investigating Committee found that Chivima had intentionally withheld information about his convictions at his 2021 revalidation, and had thereby deliberately misled the NMC. His entry on the register was therefore fraudulently procured; and because the renewal decision had rested on that incomplete information, it was also incorrectly made.

The committee did weigh mitigation. It accepted that his apologies were sincere and that he had some insight into his failings, and it noted training he had undertaken on candour and honesty along with positive testimonials provided on his behalf. But it limited the weight of that material because of the similar findings against him in 2015, and concluded that the integrity of the register outweighed his interest. On that basis it directed, under Article 26(7) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, that the Registrar remove his entry from the register.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The public record in this case is the NMC’s own published determination rather than press coverage or contested litigation: the charges were admitted, so there was no dispute about the facts for a hearing to resolve. The independent record service MedicWatch, which aggregates published decisions of UK healthcare regulators, added the case to its record of erasures on 17 August 2026.

The consequence is the loss of registration itself. Erasure — the regulator’s term for being struck off — removes a practitioner from the register, so that they are no longer permitted to practise that profession in the UK. It is otherwise indefinite, although it can be reviewed after a minimum of five years.

Current Status

The decision date was 13 August 2026, and the hearing opened the same day: a single-day Investigating Committee sitting that heard the admitted case, made its findings, and settled the sanction. Chivima has been directed to be removed from the NMC register by virtue of Article 26(7) of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001.

The committee made “no interim order for the 28-day appeal period”, having found no ongoing risk to the public and that the threshold for an interim order was not met. It did not suspend the removal direction; unless Chivima appeals, the erasure takes effect once the 28-day period expires. The absence of an interim order signals the committee’s view that keeping him on the register in the meantime was unnecessary for public protection.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The removal direction ends Chivima’s career as a registered nurse in the United Kingdom. He may no longer practise as a mental health nurse, and the erasure stands indefinitely unless he successfully seeks a review, which cannot occur until at least five years have passed. The findings of fraudulent procurement attach to how he left the register, not merely why: a future application for readmission would be assessed against a record showing that he deliberately misled his regulator and that his last renewal was obtained on incorrect information.

The case also illustrates how little the mitigating material moved the outcome. Sincere apologies, some insight, candour training and positive testimonials were all acknowledged — and all outweighed by the 2015 findings and by the committee’s view that the integrity of the register came first. For a nurse whose convictions were unrelated to clinical care, it was the concealment at revalidation, rather than the driving offences themselves, that proved disqualifying.