In Summary;
- Charge
- Panel’s Determination
- Sanction
- Rejoinder
- Disciplinary Tribunal Determination (downloadable pdf)
- #iKUWEiKUWE Corner
Bungoma Governor Wycliffe Wangamati is an actuary by profession; A person who compiles and analyses statistics and uses them to calculate insurance risks and premiums. According to a document on ikuweikuwe.com desk, Wangamati stands reprimanded and was therefore fined £ 1,500 (approximately 227,740.08 Kenyan Shilling) on 13 June 2019 by Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) through a Disciplinary Tribunal Panel Hearing for failing to submit a written request for an exemption from the Continuing Professional Development (CPD) scheme and/or pay subscription fee to CDP for three consecutive years.
According IFoA Website; “The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) is the UK’s only chartered professional body dedicated to educating, developing and regulating actuaries based both in the UK and internationally. The IFoA regulates and represents over 30,000 members worldwide, overseeing their actuarial education at all stages of qualification and development throughout their careers”
The document from the Disciplinary Tribunal Panel Hearing of IFoA. It reads in part…
The Respondent had failed for 3 successive years to comply with CPD requirements
Charge:
Wafula Wycliffe Wangamati, being at the material time a member of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, the charge against you is that:
- during the 2015/2016 Continuing Professional Development (CPD) year you failed to:
(a) demonstrate that you had undertaken the appropriate minimum amount of CPD; or
(b) submit a written request for an exemption from the CPD scheme;
- your actions at paragraph 1 were in breach of Paragraph 1.2 of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries’ CPD Scheme 2015/2016;
- your actions at paragraph 1 were in breach of the Integrity principle of the Actuaries’ Code (version 2);
- your actions at paragraph 1 were in breach of the Compliance principle of the Actuaries’ Code (version 2).
- you failed to co-operate with the investigation of the head of charge at paragraph 1, in that you failed to supply documents and/ or further information relating to the subject matter of the investigation requested by the Case Manager in the course of the investigation of the head of charge;
- your actions at paragraph 5 were in breach of Rule 1.18 of the Disciplinary Scheme of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (effective 1 August 2010, amended 18 October 2012 and 1 June 2016);
- your actions at paragraph 5 were in breach of the Integrity principle of the Actuaries’ Code (version 2);
- your actions at paragraph 5 were in breach of the Compliance principle of the Actuaries’ Code (version 2);
- 9. your actions at paragraph 5 were in breach of the Communication principle of the Actuaries’ Code (version 2);
- during the 2016/2017 CPD year you failed to:
(a) demonstrate that you had undertaken the appropriate minimum amount of CPD; or
(b) submit a written request for an exemption from the CPD scheme;
- your actions at paragraph 10 were in breach of Paragraph 1.2 of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries’ CPD Scheme 2016/2017;
- your actions at paragraph 10 were in breach of the Integrity principle of the Actuaries’ Code (version 2);
- your actions at paragraph 10 were in breach of the Compliance principle of the Actuaries’ Code (version 2).
- you failed to engage with or respond to communications from the Membership
Department of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries on the matter of CPD for the 2016/2017 CPD reporting year;
- your actions at paragraph 14 were in breach of the Integrity principle of the Actuaries’ Code (version 2);
- your actions at paragraph 14 were in breach of the Compliance principle of the Actuaries’ Code (version 2).
- your actions at paragraph 14 were in breach of the Communication principle of the Actuaries’ Code (version 2);
- you failed to co-operate with the investigation of the heads of charge at paragraphs 10 and 14, in that you failed to supply documents and/ or further information relating to the subject matter of the investigation requested by the Case Manager in the course of the investigation of the head of charge;
- your actions at paragraph 18 were in breach of Rule 1.18 of the Disciplinary Scheme of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (effective 1 August 2010, amended 18 October 2012 and 1 June 2016);
- your actions, in all or any of the above, constituted misconduct in terms of Rule 1.6 of the Disciplinary Scheme of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (effective 1 August 2010, amended 18 October 2012 and 1 June 2016)
Download; IFoA Wangamati 20190613 FINAL Disciplinary Tribunal Panel Determination-1
Panel’s Determination:
- The Panel found parts 1-2, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 13-14, 16 and 18-20 of the charge proved.
The Panel found parts 3, 7, 9, 12, 15 and 17 of the charge not proved.
The Panel determined that the most appropriate and proportionate sanctions were:
- Reprimand
- Fine of £ 1,500
- The Panel declined to order the Respondent to pay costs to the IFoA.
The Respondent accepted that he had not applied for exemption from the CPD schemes for the years in question. Although accepting the fact that he had not recorded any CPD in the two years in question he denied all the charges, save one.
Sanction;
The Panel notes that the purpose of sanction is not to be punitive although it may have that effect. Rather, the purpose of sanction is to protect the public, maintain the reputation of the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct and competence. The Panel is mindful that it should impose a sanction, or combination of sanctions, necessary to achieve those objectives and in so doing it must balance the public interest with the Respondent’s own interests
In considering sanction, the Panel took into account the following aggravating factors
- The Respondent had failed for 3 successive years to comply with CPD requirements.
- The failure to co-operate was over an extended period.
The Respondent had failed for 3 successive years to comply with CPD requirements.
- The failure to co-operate was over an extended period.
Rejoinder;
Reached, the County CEO shied-off from commenting
#iKUWEiKUWE Corner;
There is no proof anywhere (actuaries’ website included) to confirm that Wangamati has settled the matter with IFoA
