Transparency is easy when you have nothing to hide. For NHS Tayside, hiding things has become an institutional reflex.
Scotland's Information Commissioner, David Hamilton, just delivered a scathing verdict on how the health board handles Freedom of Information laws. They botched requests regarding the investigation into Professor Sam Eljamel, the disgraced former head of neurosurgery at Ninewells Hospital.
If you think this is just standard bureaucratic incompetence, look closer. It is part of a multi-year pattern of evasion that has left hundreds of harmed patients fighting for basic answers.
What the Watchdog Actually Found
The ruling focuses on a March 2023 Freedom of Information request seeking background documents, internal communications, and reports tied to an internal investigation. NHS Tayside did what public bodies often do when cornered. They stonewalled.
They claimed documents did not exist. They blamed personal data exemptions to block disclosure. They carried out sloppy, surface-level searches.
Commissioner Hamilton did not mince words. He stated that NHS Tayside's approach fell significantly short of legal requirements.
Instead of evaluating each document on its own merits, the health board applied a lazy, one-size-fits-all redaction policy. They treated public accountability like a nuisance rather than a legal duty.
The Wider Shadow of the Eljamel Scandal
You cannot separate this latest FOI failure from the broader disaster surrounding Sam Eljamel. Eljamel practiced at Ninewells Hospital in Dundee from 1995 until his suspension in 2013. During that time, he botched surgeries, left junior staff unsupervised, and harmed scores of vulnerable patients. Some victims suffered life-changing injuries.
Years later, patients are still fighting to find out who knew what and when.
When health boards obscure internal reviews, they fuel suspicion. Every blacked-out page and missing record tells victims that protecting the institution matters more than acknowledging past harm.
Why Bureaucrats Keep Hiding Behind Data Protection
Data protection laws exist to safeguard individual privacy. Public authorities love to weaponize these laws to shield themselves from embarrassment.
Commissioner Hamilton pointed out a fundamental flaw in NHS Tayside's defense. While personal data regarding junior staff or sensitive health records must stay private, the professional actions of senior staff and high-profile clinicians are a different matter entirely.
When a surgeon's malpractice triggers a public inquiry, public interest outweighs institutional comfort. NHS Tayside failed to grasp that distinction. Or worse, they grasped it completely and chose opacity anyway.
What Happens Next
The watchdog has ordered NHS Tayside to carry out proper searches, drop the blanket secrecy, and issue a revised response by September 17. They must release specific staff job titles, senior management details, and relevant documentation that was unlawfully withheld.
Compliance won't undo years of trauma. It won't bring back the trust of patients who were let down by the very system meant to heal them.
Stop accepting excuses from public bodies that treat transparency as optional. Demand accountability, track open inquiries, and force institutions to face the records they try to bury.
