Nigerian Dietitian Struck Off UK Register for Lying on Job Application
A Nigerian dietitian, Ifeyinwa Chizube Ndulue-Nonso, has been struck off the UK professional register after a tribunal found she falsely claimed expertise across multiple medical specialties to secure a role she was not qualified to perform.
Tribunal Findings and Hearing Details
The decision was made by a panel under the Health and Care Professions Council, following a hearing conducted by the Health and Care Professions Tribunal Service between March 2 and 10, 2026. The tribunal determined that Ndulue-Nonso had significantly misrepresented her skills in her application for a Band 6 dietitian position at Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust.
She claimed experience in areas such as cancer care, neurology, gastrointestinal conditions, artificial feeding, and complex nutritional management. However, shortly after she began work in February 2024, supervisors raised serious concerns about her competence.
Evidence of Incompetence and Knowledge Gaps
Evidence presented to the panel showed she was unable to explain basic medical conditions such as coeliac disease, irritable bowel syndrome, and eating disorders, and lacked understanding of core dietetic principles. Her supervisors also reported fundamental knowledge gaps, including difficulty calculating body mass index (BMI), identifying symptoms of dysphagia, interpreting clinical data, and understanding feeding methods.
In one particularly alarming instance, she reportedly misidentified a feeding tube as a breathing tube, highlighting severe deficiencies in her practical knowledge.
Admissions of Dishonesty and Incorrect Answers
The tribunal heard that she admitted to exaggerating her experience and, in some cases, researching basic medical terms during assessments while claiming prior knowledge. During questioning, she gave incorrect answers to basic anatomy questions, further underscoring concerns about her competence and preparedness for the role.
Panel Conclusion and Sanctions
The panel concluded that her actions were not accidental but involved deliberate and sustained dishonesty from the application stage through to her time in the role. It ruled that her conduct fundamentally undermined trust in the profession. Although no patients were harmed, this was attributed to supervisors preventing her from undertaking clinical duties.
The tribunal warned that allowing her to practise could have posed serious risks to patient safety. Given the severity of the misconduct, the panel determined that neither conditions of practice nor suspension would be sufficient, and that removal from the register was the only appropriate sanction.
Interim Measures and Broader Implications
An interim suspension order of 18 months was also imposed while any potential appeal is considered, reinforcing the seriousness of the case and the need to protect public confidence in healthcare professionals. This case serves as a stark reminder of the critical importance of honesty and integrity in healthcare applications, where falsified credentials can directly endanger patient welfare and erode trust in medical systems.
