- The tribunal finds serious disputes about policy manipulation, fake leads, and client consent. This undermines the reason for debarment; OUTsurance must reassess.
- Nyembezi claims he acted in good faith, kept records, and got verbal consent from clients. The tribunal notes his employer did not provide supporting evidence.
- The decision highlights the need for fairness under the FAIS Act, emphasising that debarment must be based on verified facts.
Bonginkosi Peter Nyembezi has worked as an insurance broker manager at OUTsurance since 2008. After he resigned in April 2025, he faced debarment as a financial services representative.
This followed a disciplinary process that claimed he violated company policies and the Fit and Proper requirements under the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act (FAIS Act).
Nyembezi led a team of 17 brokers. He was directly involved in client interactions, managing policy sales, and ensuring compliance with internal procedures. On April 9, 2025, he resigned during a suspension and ongoing disciplinary actions from OUTsurance.
The termination letter he received on 24 April 2025, stated that he no longer met the FAIS Act’s standards for honesty, integrity, and good standing.
The termination letter alleged Nyembezi reinstated a cancelled policy without proper procedure, created a fake customer lead, added risk to a policy without client consent, and sought gifts and money from subordinates between November 2024 and January 2025. The company claimed these actions justified his debarment and informed him of his right to make written comments.
Nyembezi’s defence and human impact
Nyembezi appeared before the Tribunal and strongly denied the allegations. Regarding the reinstatement of policy XXX694, he stated: “I contacted the policyholder directly on a recorded line and obtained their verbal consent to reinstate the policy.”
For the alleged fictitious customer under policy XXX208, he provided text messages and documents, saying: “This customer is real. I have records, calls, and company documents to prove their existence. Outsurance has access to the recorded calls.”
On policy XXX551, which was said to have risks added without consent, Nyembezi explained: “The customer agreed to the reinstatement on a recorded line after some items were removed from the policy. Consent was given before the transaction was completed.”
Concerning the claim that he violated the gift and conflict-of-interest policy, he clarified: “I have a personal friendship with the team member. The monetary deposits were not payment for leads. Leads were shared through group messages, not individually, and the policy refers to gifts from outside parties, not colleagues.”
Nyembezi highlighted the personal impact of the debarment: “I am the sole breadwinner for my family. This penalty is harsh and could threaten our livelihood. I have always acted in good faith and upheld Outsurance’s standards.”
Tribunal findings and reasoning
The Financial Services Tribunal, chaired by C Woodrow SC and including Zama Nkubungu-Shangisa and M Mphaga SC, pointed out the lack of evidence from Outsurance. The Tribunal noted that recorded calls, which Nyembezi claimed existed, could have resolved disputes about policy reinstatements and fake customers, but were not retrieved or shown.
“Given that the issue of fictitious clients was disputed, it cannot be left to the Tribunal to draw an inference. Call records would have settled the matter,” the Tribunal observed.
The panel concluded that OUTsurance had not satisfied itself with the “available facts and information” required under section 14 of the FAIS Act. They also found disputes regarding the alleged solicitation of gifts, which the company could not confirm with statements from team members.
“There are serious disputes regarding the charges against the Applicant. OUTsurance alleged that the Applicant pressured subordinates to make monetary contributions. This is disputed, and counter facts are provided,” the decision states.
The Tribunal emphasised that debarment is a serious step that requires fairness. Without verified evidence and proper assessment, the decision could not be upheld.
Outcome and next steps
The Tribunal approved Nyembezi’s request for reconsideration and cancelled the debarment. OUTsurance must re-evaluate the case, considering the disputed facts and the evidence presented.
“Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, there are disputes about the merits of the case. We are not convinced that OUTsurance could have justified a debarment,” the Tribunal concluded.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
