Opinion / Columnist
Is ZB Life Assurance a trap for exploitation and abuse?
02 Sep 2025 at 16:52hrs | 220 Views
When the powerful prey on the poor and desperate, it ceases to be business and becomes sheer bullying.
There is a disturbing trend taking place at ZB Life Assurance, the insurance subsidiary of ZB Financial Holdings, which deserves urgent scrutiny by regulators, labour bodies, and the public.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
On the surface, ZB Life Assurance presents itself as a respectable employer, recruiting field agents to sell its range of insurance policies.
Yet behind this façade lies a system of entrapment and procedural abuse - one that financially shackles desperate job seekers through so-called "advances" while discarding them through unprocedural warnings and dismissals that disregard Zimbabwe's labour protections.
According to documents in my possession, the pattern is consistent and alarming.
Recruitment begins with commission-only "opportunities" where earnings exist only if policies are sold.
To ease entry into this demanding role, new agents are offered monthly "advances" - typically around US$150.
These are not allowances or stipends; they are debts, recoverable by the company.
In a collapsed economy where many are simply trying to survive, such advances are readily accepted because food, rent, and transport cost money long before the first commission arrives.
But based on the information I have received, most new agents secure little to no business in the short term.
Commissions are negligible - often zero - while the advance balance ticks upward month after month, quickly topping several hundred dollars and, in many instances, exceeding US$1000.
The result is a predictable bind: agents are trapped by debts to the very company that controls their only path to repayment.
The trap tightens when further "loans," including motor vehicle schemes, are dangled before recruits already buckling under debt.
These offers may look like ladders out of poverty; in practice, they often function as heavier chains.
The company knows that most entrants, still trying to build a book of business in an unforgiving market, cannot service these liabilities.
Debt becomes the leash that keeps people tied to an arrangement that rarely pays a living income.
Financial bondage is only half the story.
According to documents in my possession, ZB Life Assurance frequently issues written warnings for "poor performance" without observing the most basic elements of procedural fairness.
Warnings cite failure to meet "minimum standards" but often present no specific dates, figures, or evidence.
Under the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, 2006 (Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006), disciplinary action must follow a fair process: an employee should be informed of the allegations, given time to prepare, and heard by an impartial authority.
Where a company has its own code of conduct - as ZB Life Assurance does - the same principles are baked into internal policy.
Yet, as reflected in the letters I have reviewed, agents can be served with warnings out of the blue, without prior notification, without a hearing, and without disclosure of the benchmarks allegedly missed.
When agents challenge these defects in writing, the responses are ignored.
Compounding the impropriety, some communications imply that the company can cancel an insurance agent's licence for failing to meet standards.
That is simply not true.
Under the Insurance Act [Chapter 24:07], the authority to issue, suspend, or cancel insurance agency licences lies with the Insurance and Pensions Commission (IPEC), not with individual companies.
Any suggestion that a company can unilaterally cancel a regulator-issued licence is misleading and potentially unlawful.
According to documents in my possession, this misrepresentation is not hypothetical - it has featured in the company's correspondence.
The culmination of these defects is seen in how terminations are executed.
In one matter reflected in documents in my possession, an agent formally challenged a procedurally flawed warning issued on 17 July 2025.
There was no hearing.
No evidence was shared.
No official reply to the challenge arrived.
Instead, a termination letter was issued on 31 August 2025, effective immediately.
Zimbabwe's Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] is clear that termination must respect minimum notice requirements (Section 12) and due process.
Even where a company argues that a person is an "agent" rather than an "employee," two facts remain: first, if the individual falls within the Labour Act's protective ambit, statutory procedures apply; second, where the company has adopted a code of conduct and promised hearing rights, basic principles of natural justice require that it honour those commitments.
In this case, according to documents in my possession, there was no hearing and no reasonable notice - only a same-day dismissal.
The financial pressure does not end at the door.
The same termination letter, according to documents in my possession, demanded repayment of advances totalling roughly US$700 within 14 days, threatening legal action "without further notice," together with interest and legal costs.
No detailed transaction ledger or calculation breakdown was supplied to show how that figure was reached.
The company further stated that any commissions due would be locked for twelve months, with any remaining balance paid later into the agent's bank account.
For a person who has just been deprived of income without due process, a 14-day ultimatum and the prospect of legal costs function less as routine debt recovery and more as intimidation - especially when the debt was accumulated under a model that virtually guarantees failure in the early months.
What emerges, then, is a double exploitation.
First, a financial snare: advances are marketed as support but operate as debt anchors in a commission-only environment where new entrants predictably struggle.
Second, a procedural ambush: warnings and sackings are carried out in ways that, on the face of the documents, sidestep SI 15 of 2006, Section 12 of the Labour Act, and the company's own stated standards of fairness.
The misstatement of licensing powers adds a further layer of coercion.
This is not a legitimate performance management system; it is a conveyor belt from recruitment to indebtedness to expulsion - minus the protections the law demands.
Zimbabwe's labour framework exists precisely to prevent this.
SI 15 of 2006 mandates fair hearings before discipline.
The Labour Act's Section 12 sets minimum notice periods and anchors expectations of lawful termination.
Section 65 of the Constitution affirms the right to fair labour practices, and the principles of natural justice - heard across our jurisprudence - require notice, disclosure, and an opportunity to be heard.
Even if disputes arise about whether a particular agent is an "employee" in the strict legal sense, companies cannot hide behind labels to evade procedural fairness, especially where their own codes and correspondence recognise those rights.
Nor can they threaten to wield powers - such as licence cancellation - that the law reserves to IPEC.
This is why regulators and social partners must act.
IPEC should interrogate whether advances and vehicle "loans" are being used to engineer dependency and leverage, and whether communications about licensing overstate corporate power.
The Ministry of Labour should investigate the issuance of warnings without hearings, same-day terminations, and the locking up of commissions.
Trade unions, industry bodies, and civil society ought to extend support to commission-based workers who, though atomised and dispersed, face systemic risks of debt bondage and rights violations.
Where appropriate, affected individuals should consider reporting to labour officers, lodging complaints with IPEC, and pursuing statutory or contractual remedies to challenge defective warnings, unlawful termination, and opaque debt claims.
A financial Institution should model the highest ethical standards.
Instead, the practices reflected in the documents in my possession resemble those of a predatory lender masquerading as an employer: entice the vulnerable with cash, shackle them with debt, silence them with misstatements of power, and eject them without due process - then chase them for repayment within two weeks.
That is not decent work.
It is exploitation.
What is unfolding at ZB Life Assurance is not merely a questionable practice of indebting agents through "advances."
It is also a blatant violation of Zimbabwe's labour protections, where warnings are issued without hearings, terminations are effected without lawful notice, commissions are withheld, and debts are enforced through intimidation - often without transparent accounting.
These are not rumours.
They are evidenced in official company letters and correspondence.
If left unchecked, this model will normalise financial bondage and unlawful dismissal, deepening the precarity of those Zimbabweans who can least afford another kick in the teeth.
No job should reduce a worker to a debtor with no voice.
Accountability is overdue.
© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
There is a disturbing trend taking place at ZB Life Assurance, the insurance subsidiary of ZB Financial Holdings, which deserves urgent scrutiny by regulators, labour bodies, and the public.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
On the surface, ZB Life Assurance presents itself as a respectable employer, recruiting field agents to sell its range of insurance policies.
Yet behind this façade lies a system of entrapment and procedural abuse - one that financially shackles desperate job seekers through so-called "advances" while discarding them through unprocedural warnings and dismissals that disregard Zimbabwe's labour protections.
According to documents in my possession, the pattern is consistent and alarming.
Recruitment begins with commission-only "opportunities" where earnings exist only if policies are sold.
To ease entry into this demanding role, new agents are offered monthly "advances" - typically around US$150.
These are not allowances or stipends; they are debts, recoverable by the company.
In a collapsed economy where many are simply trying to survive, such advances are readily accepted because food, rent, and transport cost money long before the first commission arrives.
But based on the information I have received, most new agents secure little to no business in the short term.
Commissions are negligible - often zero - while the advance balance ticks upward month after month, quickly topping several hundred dollars and, in many instances, exceeding US$1000.
The result is a predictable bind: agents are trapped by debts to the very company that controls their only path to repayment.
The trap tightens when further "loans," including motor vehicle schemes, are dangled before recruits already buckling under debt.
These offers may look like ladders out of poverty; in practice, they often function as heavier chains.
The company knows that most entrants, still trying to build a book of business in an unforgiving market, cannot service these liabilities.
Debt becomes the leash that keeps people tied to an arrangement that rarely pays a living income.
Financial bondage is only half the story.
According to documents in my possession, ZB Life Assurance frequently issues written warnings for "poor performance" without observing the most basic elements of procedural fairness.
Warnings cite failure to meet "minimum standards" but often present no specific dates, figures, or evidence.
Under the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, 2006 (Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006), disciplinary action must follow a fair process: an employee should be informed of the allegations, given time to prepare, and heard by an impartial authority.
Where a company has its own code of conduct - as ZB Life Assurance does - the same principles are baked into internal policy.
Yet, as reflected in the letters I have reviewed, agents can be served with warnings out of the blue, without prior notification, without a hearing, and without disclosure of the benchmarks allegedly missed.
When agents challenge these defects in writing, the responses are ignored.
Compounding the impropriety, some communications imply that the company can cancel an insurance agent's licence for failing to meet standards.
That is simply not true.
Under the Insurance Act [Chapter 24:07], the authority to issue, suspend, or cancel insurance agency licences lies with the Insurance and Pensions Commission (IPEC), not with individual companies.
Any suggestion that a company can unilaterally cancel a regulator-issued licence is misleading and potentially unlawful.
According to documents in my possession, this misrepresentation is not hypothetical - it has featured in the company's correspondence.
The culmination of these defects is seen in how terminations are executed.
In one matter reflected in documents in my possession, an agent formally challenged a procedurally flawed warning issued on 17 July 2025.
There was no hearing.
No evidence was shared.
No official reply to the challenge arrived.
Instead, a termination letter was issued on 31 August 2025, effective immediately.
Zimbabwe's Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] is clear that termination must respect minimum notice requirements (Section 12) and due process.
In this case, according to documents in my possession, there was no hearing and no reasonable notice - only a same-day dismissal.
The financial pressure does not end at the door.
The same termination letter, according to documents in my possession, demanded repayment of advances totalling roughly US$700 within 14 days, threatening legal action "without further notice," together with interest and legal costs.
No detailed transaction ledger or calculation breakdown was supplied to show how that figure was reached.
The company further stated that any commissions due would be locked for twelve months, with any remaining balance paid later into the agent's bank account.
For a person who has just been deprived of income without due process, a 14-day ultimatum and the prospect of legal costs function less as routine debt recovery and more as intimidation - especially when the debt was accumulated under a model that virtually guarantees failure in the early months.
What emerges, then, is a double exploitation.
First, a financial snare: advances are marketed as support but operate as debt anchors in a commission-only environment where new entrants predictably struggle.
Second, a procedural ambush: warnings and sackings are carried out in ways that, on the face of the documents, sidestep SI 15 of 2006, Section 12 of the Labour Act, and the company's own stated standards of fairness.
The misstatement of licensing powers adds a further layer of coercion.
This is not a legitimate performance management system; it is a conveyor belt from recruitment to indebtedness to expulsion - minus the protections the law demands.
Zimbabwe's labour framework exists precisely to prevent this.
SI 15 of 2006 mandates fair hearings before discipline.
The Labour Act's Section 12 sets minimum notice periods and anchors expectations of lawful termination.
Section 65 of the Constitution affirms the right to fair labour practices, and the principles of natural justice - heard across our jurisprudence - require notice, disclosure, and an opportunity to be heard.
Even if disputes arise about whether a particular agent is an "employee" in the strict legal sense, companies cannot hide behind labels to evade procedural fairness, especially where their own codes and correspondence recognise those rights.
Nor can they threaten to wield powers - such as licence cancellation - that the law reserves to IPEC.
This is why regulators and social partners must act.
IPEC should interrogate whether advances and vehicle "loans" are being used to engineer dependency and leverage, and whether communications about licensing overstate corporate power.
The Ministry of Labour should investigate the issuance of warnings without hearings, same-day terminations, and the locking up of commissions.
Trade unions, industry bodies, and civil society ought to extend support to commission-based workers who, though atomised and dispersed, face systemic risks of debt bondage and rights violations.
Where appropriate, affected individuals should consider reporting to labour officers, lodging complaints with IPEC, and pursuing statutory or contractual remedies to challenge defective warnings, unlawful termination, and opaque debt claims.
A financial Institution should model the highest ethical standards.
Instead, the practices reflected in the documents in my possession resemble those of a predatory lender masquerading as an employer: entice the vulnerable with cash, shackle them with debt, silence them with misstatements of power, and eject them without due process - then chase them for repayment within two weeks.
That is not decent work.
It is exploitation.
What is unfolding at ZB Life Assurance is not merely a questionable practice of indebting agents through "advances."
It is also a blatant violation of Zimbabwe's labour protections, where warnings are issued without hearings, terminations are effected without lawful notice, commissions are withheld, and debts are enforced through intimidation - often without transparent accounting.
These are not rumours.
They are evidenced in official company letters and correspondence.
If left unchecked, this model will normalise financial bondage and unlawful dismissal, deepening the precarity of those Zimbabweans who can least afford another kick in the teeth.
No job should reduce a worker to a debtor with no voice.
Accountability is overdue.
© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
Source - Tendai Ruben Mbofana
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
