NICON Insurance Plc and Nigeria Reinsurance Corporation (NICON) have urged the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to investigate alleged financial irregularities surrounding the National Insurance Commission’s recent recapitalisation exercise.
The companies said the issues raised in their petition were criminal allegations involving financial accountability and regulatory conduct, rather than a civil disagreement between an industry regulator and the companies it supervises.
They made the position known in a joint statement issued in response to NAICOM’s September 10, 2026 rejoinder to their petition before the EFCC.
NICON and Nigeria Re alleged that NAICOM’s response failed to address specific questions raised in their petition, particularly the demand for one per cent of shareholders’ funds, the management of funds collected and other requirements imposed on insurance companies during the recapitalisation exercise.
The companies alleged that NAICOM demanded one per cent of shareholders’ funds from insurance companies without any provision in the Nigerian Insurance Industry Reform Act 2025 authorising such payment.
They therefore asked the EFCC to establish the legal basis for the demand, determine how the funds collected were managed and disclose their ultimate destination.
NICON and Nigeria Re further alleged that the one per cent payments were made into an account operated by NAICOM but were not remitted to the Federal Government’s Treasury Single Account.
According to them, the allegation raises questions of financial accountability that require an independent investigation.
The companies also challenged what they described as NAICOM’s demand for the transfer of 100 per cent of capital injections to the Central Bank of Nigeria as part of the recapitalisation exercise.
They argued that the demand was inconsistent with Section 16(3) of the Nigerian Insurance Industry Reform Act 2025, which, according to them, requires existing insurance companies to deposit only 10 per cent of their capital injection.
Another issue raised by the companies was the alleged collection of N180m for verification consultants. They alleged that NAICOM demanded and received a combined N180m from the two companies for consultants to conduct verification exercises.
NICON and Nigeria Re, however, claimed that no external consultants were deployed and that NAICOM staff instead conducted the verification exercise. “These are straightforward questions of law and accountability. They cannot be answered through newspaper rejoinders or rhetoric,” the companies said.
They maintained that the central question was whether the actions taken by NAICOM during the recapitalisation exercise were authorised by law. The companies also questioned NAICOM’s ability to act as regulator, collector of disputed funds and final arbiter on the legality of its own demands.
“NAICOM is a regulator, not the law. It is itself subject to the law,” they stated.
NICON and Nigeria Re said they had fully recapitalised in accordance with the NIIRA 2025 and would continue to defend the interests of their companies, shareholders and policyholders through appropriate legal and constitutional channels.
They said the matter had already been brought before the EFCC and the courts, expressing confidence that the relevant authorities would independently examine the allegations and determine whether the actions complained of were lawful.
The companies said they expected the authorities to address the specific issues contained in their petition rather than divert attention from them.
“We expect answers—not diversion,” they stated.
Discussion0