The National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) has denied claims that it “witch-hunted” or purposefully targeted insurance companies during the recapitalisation process, maintaining that all regulatory actions were made for the benefit of policyholders and industry stability.
Olusegun Omosehin, NAICOM Commissioner for Insurance, stated that the Commission would “never witch-hunt any operator,” emphasising that its duty was to safeguard policyholders while making sure insurance businesses adhered to industry regulations.
His stance came in response to enquiries from reporters over the revocation of licences for certain operators who did not comply with the recapitalisation standards, as several impacted businesses claimed that the regulatory procedure was unjust.
However, Omosehin insisted that the Commission’s rulings were not arbitrary, pointing out that operators had to go through a formal procedure for their requests for recapitalisation permission to be granted.
He stated that the procedure comprised the operators’ self-evaluation, NAICOM’s review, independent verification by one of the Big Four audit firms, and the Commission’s Governing Board’s final consideration.
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), KPMG, Deloitte, and Ernst & Young (EY) were among the companies that carried out the independent verification, adding another level of scrutiny prior to the regulatory determinations.
The Commissioner said NAICOM’s concern throughout the exercise was not simply whether an operator appeared to have raised the required capital, but whether the requirements had been genuinely and satisfactorily met.
He stressed that the regulator’s actions should therefore be viewed against its statutory responsibility to ensure that only financially sound and properly governed operators remain in the market to serve policyholders.
ALSO READ: More Insurance Companies May Be Liquidated – NAICOM
The development comes against the backdrop of allegations surrounding the recapitalisation exercise, including claims of irregularities involving the process and the amounts reportedly raised by some operators.
Omosehin’s defence effectively places the burden on the regulator to demonstrate that the cancellations were based on verifiable deficiencies rather than regulatory discretion or hostility towards particular companies.
He said NAICOM remained committed to a transparent and rules-based regulatory environment, insisting that the Commission’s overriding objective was to build a stronger insurance industry capable of meeting its obligations to policyholders.
The Commissioner also reiterated that the recapitalisation exercise was designed to strengthen the industry’s financial capacity and improve confidence in insurance, rather than to punish operators.
He said the Commission would continue to engage stakeholders while enforcing the rules necessary to protect the integrity of the industry.
For operators whose licences were affected by the exercise, however, the central issue remains the basis upon which their individual applications failed to secure regulatory clearance.
NAICOM’s position is that the rigorous multi-stage verification process provides the basis for its decisions, with the Commission insisting that its regulatory actions were taken to safeguard the industry and its policyholders.
