- The Tribunal found that Ntonjeni falsified employment and contact details in three life insurance policies.
- Victims were left without coverage, believing they had valid insurance.
- The debarment was upheld to protect the public and restore trust in financial services.
Pamella Ntonjeni worked for Momentum Metropolitan Life Ltd to help people get life insurance. Instead, she used false information to push through three policies that never collected premiums and never provided coverage, leaving clients unprotected. The Financial Services Tribunal said her actions were not mistakes; they were intentional.
In each case, the Tribunal discovered that Ntonjeni manipulated client data to activate policies that should not have been issued. The outcome was always the same: no premiums were collected, no benefits were available, and clients were led to believe they were covered when they were not.
“This was not poor data capture,” the Tribunal stated. “It was manipulation aimed at generating commission.”
Case 1: False employer and misused consent
In July 2022, Ntonjeni submitted a policy application using a mobile number that didn’t belong to the client. Investigators confirmed this through ITC and True Caller records. She also claimed the client worked at NAMPAK, which the company denied.
The Tribunal found that these were not innocent errors. They were misrepresentations meant to push the policy through and earn commission.
Case 2: Altered contact details and fake employment
In September 2022, she submitted another policy using a phone number not linked to the client. She listed Protea Security Services as the employer, but this was also false. Internal records showed that she manually changed the client’s contact number just before the policy was issued. This allowed her to bypass the system’s USSD consent check, which was meant to protect clients.
“The audit trail records the Applicant manually altering a client’s contact number immediately before issuance,” the Tribunal noted. “This constitutes strong evidence of premeditated conduct.”
Case 3: Invented employment history
In August 2022, Ntonjeni submitted a third policy, claiming the client worked for SA Airways. ITC records later confirmed that the client had never worked there. This was the third time she provided false employment information. The Tribunal said this showed a clear pattern of dishonesty, not isolated mistakes.
“These are not matters of interpretive disagreement,” the Tribunal wrote. “They are objective findings confirmed by ITC record checks.”
“I was just an assistant”
Ntonjeni tried to argue that she wasn’t a financial advisor, just an assistant doing clerical work. She claimed she shouldn’t have been debarred under the FAIS Act because she wasn’t a regulated representative. However, the Tribunal examined her contract and supervision agreements with Metropolitan. These showed she was appointed as a Financial Advisor, authorized to provide financial services under supervision.
“She accepted the appointment,” the Tribunal wrote. “Her responsibilities involved much more than simple data entry.” They also mentioned that her job required her to meet regulatory standards, including honesty and integrity. “Even supervised representatives must meet the Fit and Proper requirements,” they said.
Ntonjeni also claimed the debarment was rushed to prevent her from being reinstated. She had challenged her dismissal at the CCMA and wanted the debarment paused until that process was finished. But the Tribunal said the CCMA and the FAIS Act operate in different realms. “The debarment process is independent,” they wrote. “It serves a distinct regulatory function.”
They referenced previous cases confirming that once a financial services provider determines a representative no longer meets the honesty standard, they are legally required to debar them. “This is not a discretionary employment decision,” the Tribunal said. “It is a legal obligation.”
“I didn’t get all the documents”
Finally, Ntonjeni claimed she wasn’t provided key documents during her disciplinary hearing, including her contract and supervision records. But the Tribunal stated those documents were part of the debarment process, not the employment dispute. “She was given adequate notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond,” they said. “She chose not to attend the hearing and did not engage with the facts.”
They also pointed out that the documents she claimed were withheld actually proved she was a regulated representative. “Her argument is self-defeating,” the Tribunal concluded.
Verdict
The Tribunal found that Ntonjeni no longer meets the honesty and integrity standards required to work in financial services. Her debarment stands. The people she misled were left uninsured, and the industry must now work to rebuild trust.
“She has failed to present any credible evidence before this body,” the Tribunal said. “Her denials do not hold up under scrutiny.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
