Digital banking outfit Loop , operated by NCBA Group , is once again under the spotlight following fresh allegations of exploitative employment tactics, after a brand ambassador working under its Flex Project claimed she was abruptly terminated without pay, despite holding a valid contract and having rendered services throughout the period in question. Termination dispute at NCBA raises questions over due process and digital labour ethics in fintech contracting and the bank's gig-based banking workforce model.
The dispute, which has ignited quiet outrage among peers within the fast-paced fintech sales community, revolves around a procedural lapse committed months earlier during the brand ambassador's onboarding phase.
Despite continuing in her duties without interruption, the company reportedly cited that early mistake as grounds for dismissal and withheld compensation for her most recent work.
The ambassador, one among many temporary workers tasked with driving product adoption and merchant acquisition for Loop on the ground, argues that they were not afforded due process or any formal warning before termination, raising questions about how the company handles infractions within its growing ecosystem of contracted field staff. "Good morning Cyprian. I was working under Loop and I made a mistake early March and I was new in the program so sikua ni shida. Jana wakanitumia termination of contract na wakaniambia hawatanilipa juu ya hiyo makosa ya March. Is it right Aki Cyprian? And I have worked the whole month and I have kids that depend on me. Nawadai 35K. Na nilikuwa nimesign contract up to November. Makosa ya March inaweza affect payment yangu ya July Aki?" According to the official communication seen by this publication, the termination was executed via a letter dated 28th July 2025, signed by a project manager associated with the Loop Flex initiative.
The company accused the ambassador of engaging in what it described as fraudulent activities, namely the opening of Loop Tills that were later deemed non-compliant with the platform’s internal terms and operational policies.
The document, curt in tone and final in scope, invoked these claims as justification not only for the abrupt termination of the engagement but also for the complete forfeiture of wages for the entire working period.
Without citing any formal warnings, hearings, or recourse mechanisms offered prior to the decision, the letter proceeds to assert that due to the said breach, the ambassador would not be eligible to receive a salary and instructs her to return company materials promptly,all while framing the termination as a lesson in “professionalism and integrity.” Termination letter issued to a Loop Flex brand ambassador, citing alleged misconduct over non-compliant till registrations, and notifying immediate dismissal without pay.
However, those familiar with the case, and with similar deployments under Loop Flex, argue that the justification, as laid out, fails to meet basic thresholds of fairness.
They question how a procedural misstep committed during the early stages of onboarding could be invoked months later, after the individual had been actively engaged in field duties, training sessions, and regular reporting structures with no apparent issue flagged until the termination notice was issued.
The language of the letter, blending corporate formality with sweeping moral judgment, portrays a broader imbalance in how digital labour is governed.
Whether this particular case reflects an isolated incident or a systemic pattern within Loop's evolving merchant acquisition infrastructure remains to be seen.