The National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) has dismissed allegations that it deliberately targeted or ‘witch-hunted’ insurance operators in the course of the recapitalisation exercise, insisting that every regulatory action was taken in the interest of policyholders and the stability of the industry.
NAICOM Commissioner for Insurance, Olusegun Omosehin, said the Commission would ‘never witch-hunt any operator’, stressing that its responsibility was to protect policyholders while ensuring that insurance companies complied with the regulatory requirements governing the industry.
His position followed questions from journalists over the cancellation of licences of some operators that failed to meet the recapitalisation requirements, amid allegations by some affected companies that the regulatory process was unfair.
Omosehin, however, maintained that the Commission’s decisions were not arbitrary, explaining that operators went through a structured process before their applications for recapitalisation clearance could be approved.
According to him, the process involved self-assessment by the operators, review by NAICOM, independent verification by one of the Big Four audit firms and final consideration by the Commission’s Governing Board.
The independent verification was conducted by firms including PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), KPMG, Deloitte and Ernst and Young (EY), providing an additional layer of scrutiny before the regulatory decisions were taken.
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.
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.