Tribunal upholds debarment of adviser accused of dropping client calls

The Financial Services Tribunal has dismissed an application to reconsider the debarment of former Pineapple Tech employee Sibongile Mashego, upholding the company’s conclusion that she no longer met the honesty and integrity standards required of financial services representatives.

Allegations from internal audit

Pineapple Tech launched debarment proceedings after an audit of Mashego’s calls in January 2026 allegedly found that she answered incoming client calls but either remained silent before ending them or terminated conversations shortly after introducing herself. The company said those calls were then recorded as “not reached” interactions.

Company response and hearing

Pineapple Tech told the tribunal it regarded the conduct as manipulative of internal processes, performance metrics and reporting systems, with a direct effect on commission calculations. The company said the actions were dishonest and inconsistent with expectations for a senior retentions agent.

After Mashego received a suspension notice she resigned with immediate effect on 5 February 2026. Pineapple Tech issued a notice of intention to debar her on the same day and provided a copy of its debarment policy. A debarment hearing was held on 18 March 2026, during which Mashego was allowed to make submissions.

Tribunal findings

The tribunal said Pineapple Tech had followed the legally prescribed debarment process by providing written notice, outlining the allegations, affording Mashego an opportunity to respond and considering her submissions before making a final decision. It found there were no grounds to interfere with the company’s decision that Mashego did not meet the fit‑and‑proper requirements under the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act.

“It is apparent that the debarment proceedings were conducted fairly and in compliance with the legislation,”

the tribunal wrote, and it rejected Mashego’s attempt to have the debarment suspended pending reconsideration. The panel had previously dismissed a suspension application, finding it lacked prospects of success and relied on legal arguments unsupported by evidence.

No merit in procedural or factual complaints

The tribunal criticised Mashego for failing to properly explain her conduct during the debarment proceedings, the suspension application and the reconsideration application. It also rejected her argument that the conduct amounted to mere negligence, noting her status as a senior employee and finding that her explanations did not withstand scrutiny.

Concluding there were no grounds to upset Pineapple Tech’s decision, the tribunal dismissed the reconsideration application and confirmed the debarment.