PW1: In the screening interview process I was not surprised because I was informed by the bank that after our shortlisting, they have decided that all the internal candidates, that’s people that are already working in the bank and that are candidates that have not passed the shortlisting stage, the bank decided on the own that all those that have about twenty five will be retained for the next stage. Therefore, I know that some candidates will redo that. (Bold for emphasis) The Respondent submits Exhibit 17, a letter dated 28th April, 2017 as its rebuttal to the claims of irregularity alleged by the Applicant. In the letter, the Respondent reminded the Applicant that the same process which he condemns as being fraught with irregularity was the one used in his initial recruitment. In a twist, the Respondent’s submits the Applicant’s letter dated 8th May, 2017 and marked as Exhibit 18 which ironically maintains the claim of the Applicant that the process was illegal but fails to rebut the evidence in the Respondent’s Exhibit 17 which is the Letter reminding the Applicant that the process was fair because it was the same one used to employ him in the first instance. The issue before the Court is noncompliance with the Staff Rules and Regulations of the Respondent pursuant to recruitment of the position for Director, Public Sector Operations not a prior process. The Court notes also that the said Staff Rules and Regulations provides that a staff member can question the conditions of service if they feel that it goes contrary to the law. Therefore, as to whether the Applicant submitted evidence in support of his claim of non-compliance with procedure by the Respondent in the recruitment process, the Court finds that he did not sufficiently discharge 29 | P a g e