The Financial Services Tribunal (FST) has set aside a representative’s debarment on procedural grounds, despite noting that the allegations against him were serious and could, if proved, justify debarment.
The decision followed an application for reconsideration by Nolukhanyo Ncalu against Quill Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd. The parties agreed that the matter be decided on the papers.
In June 2025, he was placed on precautionary suspension pending an investigation and disciplinary proceedings into allegations of gross misconduct arising from a client complaint. The allegations included unprofessional and unethical conduct, improper inducement, dishonest conduct and misrepresentation in relation to the sale of a policy.
In October 2025, Quill issued a notice of intention to debar Ncalu and invited him to make written representations. Ncalu submitted a response disputing the allegations and challenging the credibility of the complainant’s affidavit.
According to Ncalu, he only became aware that he had been debarred when, while submitting an examination application, he discovered his status on the Financial Sector Conduct Authority’s register of debarred representatives. The register reflected that the debarment had taken effect on 8 July 2025, several months before the notice of intention to debar was issued.
The Tribunal emphasised that debarment under section 14 of the FAIS Act must comply with the procedural requirements of section 14(3): adequate prior notice of the intention to debar; clear communication of grounds and terms; provision of the financial services provider’s written debarment policies; an opportunity to make representations; and proper consideration of those representations before a decision is taken. Once a decision is taken, the FSP must provide written notification and reasons.
The FST found the FSCA register date (8 July 2025) to be determinative and noted that this pre-dated Quill’s October 2025 notice inviting representations. Quill did not explain the discrepancy between the register entry and the later invitation to make representations, nor did it place any debarment decision or reasons before the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that the invitation to make representations in October was therefore illusory and that the debarment process breached section 14(3).
The Tribunal further noted that the record did not contain a final disciplinary finding or sanction and reminded that an internal disciplinary process is not a substitute for the statutory debarment procedure. There was also no evidence that Ncalu’s October 2025 representations were meaningfully considered before the debarment took effect.
The FST noted that the allegations against Ncalu were serious and, if proved, could justify debarment. However, the Tribunal held it was unnecessary to determine the substantive merits of the allegations given the procedural defects identified.
The debarment was accordingly set aside, and the matter was remitted to Quill for reconsideration.
