The Financial Services Tribunal (FST) has upheld the debarment of a representative who issued life policies when he was not authorised to do so and falsely attributed the advisory role to another rep.
The reconsideration application centred on allegations of the submission of documents bearing forged signatures, which led Assupol to Life debarring Selby Mkhabele in March this year.
On 4 July 2023, one of Mkhabele’s clients – referred to in the judgment as Ms G – signed up for a funeral policy with Assupol with Mkhabele’s assistance.
Shortly thereafter, Ms G contacted Mkhabele to express interest in a life policy. Following their discussion, a life policy valued at R500 000 was issued. A few days later, Ms G again reached out to Mkhabele, indicating a desire to increase the cover to R1 million. Mkhabele advised that amending the existing policy might be slower, recommending instead a second life policy for quicker processing. This advice resulted in the issuance of a second life policy.
These details emerged during Assupol’s later investigation, where Ms G confirmed her direct communications with Mkhabele but raised concerns about the documentation process. The two life policy application forms, dated 12 July 2023 and 2 August 2023 respectively, along with a life plan quotation dated 14 August 2023, were purportedly signed by Ms G.
Notably, these documents indicated that a Ms Sibuya, another Assupol representative, had assisted and advised Ms G. At that juncture, Mkhabele had been downgraded and was no longer authorised to provide advice on life policies, whereas Sibuya, although relatively new to Assupol, held the requisite accreditation for such services.
Discovery of irregularities and forensic investigation
The irregularities surfaced during a routine inspection, which identified possible forged signatures on the two life policy application forms. This prompted referral to Assupol’s forensic department for a comprehensive investigation.
On 9 March 2024, the forensic team contacted Ms G. She affirmed the validity of the initial funeral policy and her subsequent discussions with Mkhabele regarding the life policies. However, when presented with the signatures on the application forms and the life plan quotation, Ms G stated they were not hers. She also said she had no contact or communication with Ms Sibuya, who was named on the documents as the advising representative.
A handwriting expert compared the disputed signatures with Ms G’s undisputed signatures and concluded they were not consistent.
During the Tribunal hearing, Mkhabele insisted that the signatures were authentic, claiming he had been present when Ms G signed the documents. He posited that any discrepancies might stem from conditions affecting Ms G’s signing at the time, although he offered no specifics and acknowledged no obligation to disclose such factors had been met.
Mkhabele also suggested during the hearing that Ms G had a motive to misrepresent events, pointing to her request for a premium reduction on the life policies. The Tribunal noted, however, that this contention appeared to be an afterthought, undermined by the established business relationship of trust between Mkhabele and Ms G, and the absence of any prior requests for a premium adjustment before the investigation.
Clear evidence of unauthorised advice
In its decision, the Tribunal said it was common cause that, at all material times, Mkhabele lacked authorisation to advise on life policies as a product category offered by Assupol.
During the hearing, he argued his presence during the alleged advising by Sibuya was to assist her, given her novelty in the field. Yet, the Tribunal found overwhelming evidence against this version: Sibuya was not involved in advising Ms G, leaving Mkhabele as the sole actor.
Further complicating Mkhabele’s account was the “order of advice” document, completed by him personally despite his claim that Sibuya was the adviser. The Tribunal observed that this inconsistency “boggles the mind”, and Assupol correctly rejected his version. Even if Assupol had accepted the assistance narrative, it would not exonerate Mkhabele, because he remained unauthorised to provide or assist in such advice.
The Tribunal highlighted how Mkhabele’s collusion with Sibuya – who signed and submitted the applications as if she had advised Ms G – facilitated the deception. Sibuya, accredited for life policy advice while Mkhabele was not, was set up in a scenario where she had no contact with the client contact.
The Tribunal noted that Sibuya unfortunately allowed herself to be implicated by claiming involvement, but the forgery of Ms G’s signatures on the three documents would have been unnecessary if her role had been genuine.
In its analysis, the Tribunal emphasised the absence of merit in Mkhabele’s challenge to the debarment. The evidence painted a clear picture: unauthorised advice, forged signatures corroborated by expertise, and misrepresentation through improper submission. Mkhabele provided no plausible explanation for the signature discrepancies, and his allegations against Ms G lacked foundation.
Finding no fault in Assupol’s debarment decision, the FST dismissed the application.
