…Companies allege unlawful 1% levy, non-remittance to TSA, demand for 100% capital injections, N180m consultant fees
Nicon Insurance Limited and Nigeria Reinsurance Corporation have accused the National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) of actions bordering on criminal conduct in the implementation of the ongoing insurance industry recapitalisation exercise.
The two companies, in a statement issued in response to NAICOM’s September 10, 2026 rejoinder, said their petition before the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) concerned alleged violations of law, accountability and the handling of shareholders’ funds, rather than a civil disagreement between the regulator and the insurance companies.
The companies alleged that NAICOM had failed to address the specific issues raised in their petition, accusing the commission of attempting to divert public attention from what they described as serious questions arising from the recapitalisation exercise.
According to them, the petition to the EFCC was principally founded on four allegations, including what they described as the “criminal demand” for one per cent of shareholders’ funds during the recapitalisation process.
The companies maintained that there was no provision in the Nigerian Insurance Industry Reform Act (NIIRA) 2025 authorising or imposing the one per cent payment.
They consequently demanded that NAICOM explain the legal basis for the levy, the monies allegedly collected and their ultimate destination.
The companies also alleged that the one per cent payments collected by NAICOM were not remitted to the Federal Government’s Treasury Single Account (TSA), but were instead paid into the commission’s account.
“This raises fundamental questions requiring independent investigation,” the companies said.
They further challenged what they described as NAICOM’s demand for the transfer of 100 per cent of capital injections to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), arguing that the action was inconsistent with Section 16(3) of NIIRA 2025.
The provision, according to the companies, requires existing insurance companies to deposit only 10 per cent of their capital injection.
Another allegation contained in the petition concerned money allegedly obtained by NAICOM from insurance companies for the engagement of consultants to undertake verification exercises.
Nicon and Nigeria Re specifically alleged that NAICOM demanded and received N180 million from Nicon Insurance Limited and Nigeria Reinsurance Corporation for the purported engagement of consultants.
The companies, however, alleged that no consultants were deployed for the verification exercise and that NAICOM instead sent its own staff members.
“NAICOM obtained several millions of naira from insurance companies under the pretext of engaging consultants,” the statement alleged.
The two companies stressed that the issues raised in their petition were “straightforward questions of law and accountability” which, they said, could not be resolved through newspaper rejoinders or rhetoric.
“The issue before the Nigerian public is not whether NAICOM can issue a press statement. It is whether the actions taken during the recapitalisation exercise were authorised by law,” they said.
The companies also questioned the regulatory authority’s role in determining the legality of its own disputed demands.
“NAICOM cannot simultaneously be the regulator, the collector of disputed funds and the final judge of the legality of its own demands,” they stated.
Nicon and Nigeria Re further insisted that both companies had fully complied with the recapitalisation requirements under NIIRA 2025.
“For the avoidance of doubt, NICON Insurance Limited and Nigerian Reinsurance Corporation are fully recapitalised in accordance with NIIRA 2025,” they said.
The companies said they would continue to defend the interests of their companies, shareholders and policyholders through what they described as appropriate legal and constitutional channels.
They also rejected any suggestion that NAICOM’s regulatory status placed it above the law.
“NAICOM is a regulator, not the law. It is itself subject to the law,” the companies declared.
They said the issues had already been brought before relevant institutions, including the EFCC and the courts, expressing confidence that the authorities would independently examine the facts and determine whether the actions complained of were lawful.
“We expect answers not diversion,” the companies said.
Thursday, September 17, 2026