Behind the polished image of Kenya Commercial Bank, a very different picture is emerging from some of the people who work, or have worked, inside the institution.
Current and former employees describe a workplace where bullying, public humiliation, excessive workloads and intimidation are not isolated experiences but, they allege, part of an increasingly normalised way of managing people. Some say employees have learnt to keep quiet rather than challenge powerful supervisors, while complaints made through formal channels often appear to disappear without a clear resolution.
The concerns have come into sharper focus following the death by suicide of KCB’s Head of Data Protection, Rosemary Koech Kimwatu, and the subsequent reporting by investigative journalist John Mtongoi.
Rosemary’s death has raised questions about what happened after she formally complained about her working environment. But the accounts that followed have widened the issue considerably.
Employees from different branches and departments have described similar experiences of pressure, humiliation and fear. Some speak of young workers leaving after struggling with management. Others describe supervisors who allegedly know that complaints against them are unlikely to have serious consequences.
There are also customers who say they have noticed the effects, pointing to inconsistent service, poorly informed staff and interactions that suggest employees themselves are under considerable strain.
The allegations require investigation, and those named in them should be given an opportunity to respond. But taken together, they raise an uncomfortable question for one of Kenya’s largest banks: when does a difficult workplace culture stop being a collection of individual complaints and become an institutional problem?
Rosemary’s Complaint
Rosemary Koech, 40, headed KCB’s Data Protection Division. She died by suicide at her home in Ngong on 21 August 2026.
A post-mortem examination established suicide as the cause of death.
Three months before her death, in May, Rosemary had written to KCB’s Human Resources department raising serious concerns about Group Chief Risk Officer Faith Basiye.
In the complaint, Rosemary described what she considered bullying, public humiliation and excessive workloads. She also alleged that Basiye had conspired with her estranged husband to have her committed to a mental health facility. The complaint was copied to Group CEO Paul Russo and Managing Director Annastacia Kimtai.
What happened after that complaint remains one of the central unanswered questions.
KCB has not publicly released findings showing whether the allegations were investigated, who handled the complaint or what action was taken.
That matters because Rosemary had done what organisations ordinarily ask employees to do when they encounter serious workplace problems. She had documented her concerns and taken them to the institution’s formal grievance structure.
Her complaint therefore raises a straightforward question: what did KCB do with it? The answer has become more important following her death.
When Silence Becomes the Safest Option
In the accounts emerging from KCB, perhaps the most troubling theme is not simply bullying but the alleged fear of reporting it.
Employees describe an environment in which challenging a supervisor can carry consequences. Some say people learn quickly that it is safer to keep their heads down, do the work and avoid attracting the attention of senior managers.
That kind of environment does not require every manager to be abusive, it only requires employees to believe that those who are abusive are protected.
Once that perception takes hold, silence becomes a form of self-preservation and employees stop reporting problems, colleagues who witness misconduct stay out of it. and those who do complain may find themselves isolated or eventually deciding that leaving is easier than fighting the system.
That is the culture some current and former KCB employees now describe.
If accurate, it would represent a serious failure of internal governance because the strength of a grievance system depends not only on whether employees can submit complaints, but whether they believe something will happen after they do.
The Complaints From the Branches
The concerns are not confined to headquarters. Accounts have emerged from Kencom, Voi, Industrial Area, Kisii West and other parts of the bank.
At Voi, employees have reportedly been reduced to tears under pressure. At Industrial Area, a supervisor identified as Norena has been accused by employees of driving young workers out of the institution. Former members of the marketing team have similarly described an environment they considered excessively difficult, with staff departures becoming a recurring feature.
These allegations have not been independently established, but their significance lies partly in the similarities between them.
Different employees, in different parts of the institution, are describing pressure from management, fear of speaking up and a perception that certain supervisors are difficult to challenge.
The Cost of a High-Pressure Culture
The effects of workplace pressure do not necessarily remain inside the workplace.
KCB customers have also complained about inconsistent information from staff, declining service and interactions that appear increasingly strained.
Some customers say they receive different answers from different representatives when asking about the same products or services. Others say employees appear less knowledgeable about the bank’s offerings than in the past.
It would be simplistic to attribute every service problem to workplace culture. Banks experience staff turnover, training gaps and operational pressures for many reasons.
But there is an obvious connection worth investigating. A workforce experiencing high turnover and sustained pressure will eventually affect the institution’s ability to provide consistent service.
Employees carry institutional knowledge. When experienced workers leave, that knowledge leaves with them. New employees have to learn systems, products and procedures while dealing with the same pressures that may have driven their predecessors away.
The customer ultimately encounters the consequences.
The Managers Who Are Difficult to Challenge
Several of the allegations emerging from KCB raise another question: whether some managers have become effectively untouchable.
At Industrial Area, for example, employees have accused a supervisor identified as Norena of pushing young workers out of the bank while allegedly benefiting from connections to senior management.
If employees believe that a manager is protected because of relationships with powerful people, they are unlikely to have confidence in the grievance system, regardless of what the formal policy says.
That perception can be as damaging as an actual failure to act because it discourages complaints before they are even made.
The question for KCB is therefore not simply whether particular managers have abused their authority. It is whether employees believe the bank is willing to hold those managers accountable.
Questions Around the Top
The allegations also reach senior management. Paul Russo rose through KCB’s ranks, including a period as Human Resources Director, before becoming Group CEO. During his time in senior management, three female employees are reported to have made formal complaints alleging sexual harassment.
Among the allegations attributed to those complaints is a claim that Russo summoned women to his office, deliberately dropped pens and instructed them to bend down to retrieve them while he watched from behind.
Though unverified, these allegations raise an important institutional question – How does KCB handle complaints involving senior executives?
Does the same standard of accountability apply when the person being accused is powerful? And can employees reasonably expect an impartial investigation when a complaint involves someone close to the centre of power?
Those questions are particularly relevant because the bank’s Human Resources department is itself at the centre of the controversy surrounding Rosemary’s complaint.
Basiye and the Unanswered Complaint
Faith Basiye remains KCB’s Group Chief Risk Officer despite being named in Rosemary’s May complaint. That fact alone does not establish wrongdoing. Nor does it mean that the allegations made against her are true.
But it does create a legitimate public-interest question about what happened to Rosemary’s complaint.
If the complaint was investigated and found to be without merit, KCB could potentially explain that process without compromising confidential employee information. If concerns were substantiated, there should be a record of what action followed. If the complaint was never investigated, that raises an entirely different set of questions.
At present, the public does not have a clear account of what happened, and this lack of information has allowed speculation to fill the gap.
The Narrative After Rosemary’s Death
There has also been criticism over the way discussion of Rosemary’s death has unfolded publicly.
KCB’s long-standing public relations agency, Oxygène Marketing Communications, has been accused by critics of shifting attention towards Rosemary’s marital separation, financial disputes and her estranged husband’s political ambitions rather than the workplace complaint she had made before her death.
Rosemary had previously worked at Oxygène. Her personal circumstances may be relevant to understanding her death and should not automatically be dismissed. But they do not answer the separate question of what happened after she complained to KCB.
A person’s private difficulties and an employer’s responsibility to properly handle a formal workplace complaint can both be examined without one being used to erase the other.
The Ksh146 Billion Question
The Alliance for Human Rights Activists has demanded an independent investigation and the preservation of evidence, including records connected to a Ksh146 billion transaction.
The group has also drawn attention to Rosemary’s position in the bank’s data protection function and her potential access to sensitive compliance and integrity information.
Those claims have generated speculation about whether her professional responsibilities had any connection to the events preceding her death.
There is currently no established evidence in the material available to conclude that such a connection existed.
That is precisely why the records should be examined rather than allowing speculation to become accepted as fact.
An independent investigation could establish what information Rosemary had access to, whether the transaction raised any compliance concerns, whether she had reported anything connected to it and whether any of those matters had a bearing on the events before her death.
KCB has not publicly provided a comprehensive explanation addressing those questions.
A Culture Does Not Become Normal Overnight
The most important question arising from the complaints is whether KCB is dealing with isolated management failures or a culture that has gradually become accepted.
Cultures are rarely created by one person.
They develop when behaviour is repeatedly tolerated, when complaints produce little visible action and when employees learn from experience that speaking up may be more dangerous than remaining silent.
A manager humiliates an employee and nothing happens. Another supervisor pushes people beyond reasonable limits, and nothing happens. Someone complains and the complaint disappears. Another employee watches and learns. Eventually, silence becomes normal.
That is the culture employees are now alleging exists in parts of KCB.
Whether that allegation is fair can only be established through evidence, including grievance records, staff turnover figures, exit interviews, disciplinary records and independent interviews with current and former employees.
What KCB Needs to Explain
The questions facing KCB are therefore broader than the circumstances of Rosemary’s death.
What happened after she complained?
How many similar complaints have been made?
How many involved senior managers?
How were those complaints resolved?
How many employees have left the institution citing management behaviour or workplace conditions?
Are employees protected from retaliation after making complaints?
And when allegations are made against senior executives, who investigates them?
These are not questions that can be answered through public relations language about employee welfare.
And for a bank whose business depends fundamentally on trust, what happens inside its own workplace may ultimately be as important as what customers see from the other side of the counter.
