Tier 1 lender Absa Bank Kenya is once again the subject of uncomfortable attention, with a borrower now speaking out about what he considers a grave injustice that has left him tied to a facility far longer than originally agreed, in circumstances that raise fresh questions about the lender’s internal systems and accountability.
The employee narrates that he took a seven-year loan in 2019, scheduled to run until April 2026, with the understanding that his employer would handle repayment through a check-off arrangement, a common structure designed to remove the burden of manual repayment from the borrower.
Under this arrangement, deductions were to be taken from his monthly salary and remitted directly to the bank.
To his mind, this meant that once the money left his payslip, his obligation was discharged, and the responsibility of forwarding funds rested with the employer in agreement with the bank.
When he approached the institution this year to inquire about a top-up, he was stunned to discover that the loan balance had barely shifted, and that the repayment timeline had been pushed forward all the way to 2034.
Having already endured more than seventy months of deductions, he naturally anticipated that the principal would have been markedly reduced, only to be confronted with figures that suggested he had scarcely made an impression on the debt.
When pressed for an explanation, bank representatives pointed to adjustments in the base lending rate and persistent delays in remittances by his employer.
According to what he was told, the funds, by the time they reached the bank, were absorbed by commissions, penalties, and accumulated interest, leaving the principal untouched and the facility locked in a cycle of stagnation.
For the borrower, this outcome amounts to punishment for failures that lie entirely outside his control.
He argues that the contract between his employer and the bank was designed to guarantee timely remittance, and that his role was limited to allowing deductions from his pay, which he has faithfully endured every month.
His situation now reflects a broader pattern in which the smallest player in the chain absorbs the fallout when systems falter.
“Good afternoon, sir. Thanks for the good work you are doing for the voiceless in the society. I have an issue I would like you to air to reach those who are also suffering silently like me. I took a seven-year loan in Absa Bank, formerly Barclays Bank. I was to clear the loan in April 2026. The loan was to be recovered through check-off. My employer entered into contract with the bank and was to deduct my pay and forward to the bank. My employer has dutifully deducted my salary from the first repayment month. I visited the bank yesterday to see if I can top up. To my shock, I found out that my loan clearance period has been extended from 2026 to 2034. The outstanding balance had not moved even an inch. This is a loan I have serviced for over 70 months, but the principal is almost the same. I asked why the loan had stagnated and I was taken round in circles. When I persisted to know, I was told that two factors contributed to the stagnation. An increase in the statutory base lending rate and failure by my employer to remit the cash on time. They added that my employer remits the money after the agreed deadline, such that when the cash reaches the bank, it is used to clear commissions and penalties only. My question is, the bank entered into an agreement with my employer to deduct my pay and remit on time. Then why should I be punished for a breach which I was not party to?”
This controversy arises at a time when Absa Bank Kenya continues to wrestle with a sprawling portfolio of legal and operational challenges, many of which have attracted public scrutiny and regulatory attention over the years.
Among the most notable of these is the protracted Ksh 1.5 billion lawsuit brought by New Mega Africa Limited, which alleges the unauthorized sharing of confidential corporate data with third parties, sabotage of operations, and solicitation, with former and current employees named in the proceedings.
In parallel, the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Mombasa has repeatedly ruled against the bank in disputes over unpaid bonuses, unlawful terminations, and the denial of contractual salary increments, as seen in the cases of former branch managers Thomas Macharia Mwangi and others, where the bank’s disciplinary processes were found to have violated statutory employment protections.
Compounding these woes are multiple whistleblower allegations and investigative reports exposing data theft, unauthorized access to customer information, and illicit monetization of the bank’s digital credit platform, Timiza, in which employees reportedly collected and sold sensitive personal and financial data.
Additional incidents include reckless handling of client accounts in Bungoma and elsewhere, unauthorized modification of signing mandates, and the diversion of substantial sums, often through collusion between senior staff and intermediaries.
Questions have also arisen regarding the acquisition of underutilized bank assets by executives at prices far below market value, raising suspicions of insider profiteering.
Beyond financial misconduct, there have been claims of sexual harassment, manipulation of internal investigations, and obstruction of justice, prompting interventions by both Absa South Africa and the Central Bank of Kenya to investigate the breadth and severity of irregularities across branches.
Collectively, these episodes depict an institution repeatedly embroiled in disputes over governance, operational integrity, and the protection of client interests, creating a backdrop against which the latest borrower grievance now unfolds, reinforcing concerns about systemic lapses that continue to affect both employees and customers alike.
It remains to be seen how Absa Bank Kenya will address the growing fallout from its operational lapses, especially as regulatory bodies such as the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK), the Capital Markets Authority (CMA), and the Competition Authority of Kenya (CAK), along with consumer protection agencies like the Consumer Federation of Kenya (Cofek), appear to have been slow to intervene.
These institutions are mandated to enforce transparency, monitor compliance, and safeguard borrowers but their muted response leaves individuals like this borrower to bear the consequences of systemic failures.
The gaps in oversight, combined with repeated internal irregularities at the bank, underscore the urgent need for coordinated action to protect those caught in the crossfire of procedural neglect.
We remain committed to reporting on these developments, amplifying the voices of affected borrowers, and pressing both Absa Bank Kenya and the relevant regulatory bodies to uphold transparency, fairness, and accountability in their operations.
Our coverage will continue to track both systemic irregularities and individual grievances, providing a platform for those whose financial and legal rights may otherwise be overlooked.
