I'll try to play devil's advocate here for a moment. Is it possible that in the Prime Minister's mind, he was not exerting that much pressure on Wilson-Raybould and that he did not remove her due to that affair, but that she interpreted his behaviour as pressure and read too much between the lines of certain statements to come to her beliefs? In other words, is it possible that both of their stories are true from each their perspectives?
While I think that's possible to a small degree (i.e. that maybe Wilson-Raybould's memory has hyperbolized things somewhat), I do think that that her statement is true for the most part. If anything, she seemed cautious about not accusing the PM of anything beyond stating facts of which she was certain, so if anything, her statement might even be underplaying somewhat the pressure put on her. Either way though, even if we suppose that her memory has hyperbolized things somewhat, the hard facts that she stated even if we ignore her interpretation of and beliefs about them are already enough to make the PM look bad. Even if we suppose that he wasn't aware of how much pressure she might feel from statements of his and such, it still raises questions about his ability to communicate his intentions clearly. How can you govern effectively without the ability to clearly communicate your intentions?
So even if we give the PM as much benefit of the doubt as possible in this (and I'm being very generous here), we can say at the very least that he's an extremely poor communicator, which certainly makes him less than leadership material for which clear communication is essential. Again, I'm being very generous towards him here.
