EXTRACT FROM DIRECT EXAMINATION

APPLICANT (AP)
COUNSEL (C)
OPPOSING COUNSEL (OP)
PRESIDING OFFICER (PO)

C: Explain to us how you felt when you realised that the “tip-off” regarding Rogers’
behaviour was not taken seriously by the Respondent.
AP: I was hurt, and upset. I was putting myself on the line, opening myself up to
abuse and victimisation, and it meant nothing to them.
C: Why do you say it meant nothing to them?
AP: They never took it seriously. They ignored it, and they used it against me to
build a case against me.
C: Why do you say this?
AP: My direct supervisor, Koloi, knew about Rogers’ behaviour and when I exposed
it, it made Koloi look bad, he didn’t like this.
C: And then he started victimising you?
OP: Objection !
PO: Sustained – rephrase.
C: What did Koloi do after you supplied the “tip-off”?
AP: He started charging me with disciplinaries.
C: Directly after this?
AP: Basically, yes.
C: And how did that make you feel?
AP: Victimised and ostracised.
C: Let’s look at the first incident. You were requested on 23 March 2020 to submit
a Financial Services Rejection Report (FSRR). Did you do this?
AP: No.
C: Why?
AP: It was not critical at the time.
C: Were you disciplined at the time?
AP: No.
C: Let’s go to Incident 2. On 13 April 2020 you were asked to submit the general
minutes of the meetings of the Advisory Board. Did you supply these minutes?
AP: Yes.
C: Were you disciplined at the time?
AP: No.