Behind the polished corporate image of Kenya Commercial Bank, a growing number of current and former employees are describing a very different experience. They speak of bullying, public humiliation, excessive workloads and managers who, they allege, operate with little fear of consequence.
The complaints have gained renewed attention following the death by suicide of KCB’s Head of Data Protection, Rosemary Koech Kimwatu, and investigative reports by journalist John Mtongoi detailing the circumstances surrounding her death and the complaint she had lodged with the bank months earlier.
What followed Rosemary’s death was a stream of accounts from employees in different branches and departments, many describing similar experiences of pressure, intimidation and frustration with the bank’s internal grievance mechanisms. Some say complaints made to Human Resources and senior management rarely result in visible action, while employees who raise difficult questions risk being isolated, reprimanded or eventually leaving the institution.
The allegations are serious, but what makes them more significant is their spread across different parts of the bank. Complaints have emerged from Kencom, Voi, Industrial Area, Kisii West, the marketing department and headquarters, suggesting that the concerns cannot easily be dismissed as a disagreement involving one employee or one manager.
A week after Rosemary’s burial in Kericho, the questions surrounding her death remain unresolved, while fresh complaints continue to emerge.
Customers are beginning to notice the effects as well. Some have complained about inconsistent information from bank representatives, declining service and visibly strained interactions at branches. For an institution whose business depends on trust, the connection between how employees are treated internally and how customers experience the bank deserves closer examination.
At the centre of the controversy is a fundamental question: what happens when the people expected to enforce accountability within an organisation are themselves accused of failing to act on complaints against those in positions of power?
The Complaint Before Her Death
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 earlier, in May, Rosemary had formally written to KCB’s Human Resources department complaining about Group Chief Risk Officer Faith Basiye. In the complaint, she 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.
The bank has not publicly released the findings of any investigation into the complaint, nor has it provided a detailed public account of what action, if any, was taken after Rosemary raised the allegations.
That gap has become central to the questions now surrounding the case.
Rosemary did not simply express dissatisfaction to colleagues. She used the institution’s formal channels and documented her concerns in writing. Whatever happened after that complaint is therefore part of the bank’s own institutional record.
After her death, the complaint became public. Other employees began coming forward with their own accounts, describing what they say is a workplace where fear of management has become more powerful than confidence in internal grievance mechanisms.
At some branches, employees reportedly face public reprimands. In others, former staff describe workloads and management pressure that eventually pushed them to leave.
The accounts differ in detail, but the underlying concern is remarkably similar: employees do not believe they are adequately protected when they challenge people above them.
Pressure Inside the Branches
The complaints extend beyond the circumstances surrounding Rosemary.
At Kencom, staff have reportedly worked under intense pressure. In Voi, employees have allegedly been reduced to tears. At Industrial Area, a supervisor identified as Norena has been accused by employees of creating conditions that have contributed to young workers leaving the bank. Those making the allegations further claim that she has remained protected because of her alleged links to senior management.
The allegations have not been independently established, and those named have not publicly responded to each claim.
But the accounts are significant because they form part of a wider complaint about management culture.
Former members of the marketing team have similarly described the working environment as excessively difficult, with rapid staff departures raising questions about what is driving employees out.
There are also complaints from customers who say the effects are increasingly visible outside the bank.
Some describe receiving contradictory information from different representatives about the same products or services. Others say branch employees appear reluctant to raise problems with senior management because doing so can expose them to repercussions.
One customer observed that employees once seemed more knowledgeable about the bank’s products, while today even straightforward enquiries can produce conflicting answers.
Whether these complaints are directly caused by the alleged workplace culture is a question that requires evidence. But high staff turnover, pressure on employees and inconsistent service occurring at the same time is enough to warrant scrutiny.
Questions Around Senior Management
The allegations become more consequential when they reach the upper levels of KCB’s management.
Paul Russo rose through the bank’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.
One of the allegations attributed to those complaints involved claims that Russo summoned women to his office, deliberately dropped pens and instructed them to bend down and retrieve them while he watched from behind.
These are serious allegations that require documentary evidence and a response from those named. They should not be presented as established fact without such verification.
But they raise an important question for KCB: how were complaints against senior executives handled, and did those complaints have any bearing on subsequent promotions?
That question is particularly relevant because Human Resources is now at the centre of the wider controversy over how employee complaints are handled.
If employees believe that HR cannot act independently when the subject of a complaint is a powerful executive, the internal grievance system risks becoming little more than a formal procedure with limited practical protection.
Annastacia Kimtai, who became KCB’s Managing Director in April 2023, has also faced criticism from employees who describe her management approach as authoritarian and dismissive.
Employees have spoken of an environment where mistakes attract punishment rather than constructive intervention and where questioning decisions can have consequences for one’s career.
Faith Basiye, meanwhile, remains Group Chief Risk Officer despite being named in Rosemary’s complaint.
No public findings from that complaint have been released.
That does not establish wrongdoing. It does, however, leave a straightforward question unanswered: what did KCB do with Rosemary’s complaint after receiving it?
When Speaking Up Becomes the Risk
The most disturbing allegation running through the different accounts is that the institution’s internal systems may not protect employees who speak up.
Some current and former workers claim that employees who complain about senior managers are subsequently isolated, pressured or pushed towards the exit, while those named in complaints remain in powerful positions.
If true, that creates a fundamental imbalance.
The employee is expected to use internal channels, but using those channels may itself become a source of risk.
Rosemary’s case makes that question particularly difficult to avoid. She documented her concerns, sent them through the appropriate channels and copied senior leadership.
There is no public evidence that her complaint was resolved before her death.
Three months later, she was dead.
That chronology does not prove that workplace treatment caused her death. It does, however, make the handling of her complaint a legitimate matter of public interest.
The Battle Over the Narrative
The controversy has also raised questions about how Rosemary’s death has been portrayed publicly.
KCB’s long-standing public relations agency, Oxygène Marketing Communications, has faced criticism from activists and commentators who accuse it of directing attention towards Rosemary’s marital separation, financial disagreements and her estranged husband’s political ambitions instead of the workplace complaint she had made to KCB.
Rosemary had previously worked at Oxygène.
Her private circumstances may form part of any complete examination of her death. But they should not displace the documented fact that she had raised workplace concerns before her death.
The two issues can be investigated separately.
The more important question for KCB remains what it did after receiving those concerns.
What Was Rosemary Exposed To?
Activists from the Alliance for Human Rights Activists have demanded an independent investigation and preservation of evidence, including records connected to a Ksh146 billion transaction.
They have also pointed to Rosemary’s position within the bank’s data protection function and her potential access to sensitive compliance and integrity information.
That has generated speculation over whether her professional responsibilities had any connection to the circumstances preceding her death.
There is currently no established evidence in the material available to conclude that such a connection existed.
That is precisely why an independent investigation would be important. It would establish what is supported by evidence, what is merely speculation and whether there were issues within the bank that require further scrutiny.
KCB has yet to publicly provide a comprehensive account addressing all of these questions.
The Questions KCB Must Answer
The growing complaints are no longer confined to one employee, one department or one branch.
They concern workloads, management behaviour, staff turnover, complaints against supervisors, allegations of protected managers and the apparent reluctance of employees to challenge those above them.
The bank may dispute some or all of these allegations. It is entitled to do so, and those named should be given an opportunity to respond.
But the appropriate response to serious allegations is not simply to dismiss them as disgruntled employees’ complaints.
KCB needs to explain what happened when Rosemary complained. Was her complaint investigated? Who handled it? Were the people she accused interviewed? What findings were reached? What action followed? And are there other complaints involving senior managers that have never been resolved?
There is also a wider question for the Central Bank of Kenya and other relevant regulators: what safeguards exist to ensure that employees in systemically important financial institutions can raise concerns about senior management without fear of retaliation?
These questions cannot be settled through corporate messaging.
They require records, independent scrutiny and, where necessary, accountability.
Rosemary’s complaint existed before her death. The complaints now emerging from other employees exist after it.
Whether those complaints reveal a systemic failure within KCB or a collection of unrelated workplace disputes is something that can only be established through a credible investigation.
Until then, the most uncomfortable question remains the simplest one: if an employee can formally complain, receive no publicly disclosed resolution and then die by suicide three months later, who is responsible for finding out what happened in between?
