The National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) has rejected as false, misleading and malicious a publication alleging fraud in the recently concluded insurance industry recapitalisation exercise, accusing promoters of NICON Insurance Plc and Nigeria Reinsurance Corporation of sponsoring what it described as a deliberate campaign to undermine the regulator and its officials.
NAICOM, in a statement titled “Rejoinder to a False and Misleading Publication on the Recently Concluded Recapitalization Exercise,” said its attention had been drawn to a September 9, 2026 report titled “100 Billion Fraudulent Insurance Recapitalization: EFCC Detains NAICOM Director and Commissioner, Both on Bail.”
The commission alleged that the publication was being sponsored by promoters of NICON Insurance and Nigeria Re, which it described as companies currently under liquidation.
“The attention of the National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) has been drawn to a publication… being sponsored by the promoters of NICON Insurance Plc and Nigeria Reinsurance Corporation, both of which are currently under liquidation,” the commission said.
NAICOM described the report as a deliberate misrepresentation of events surrounding the recapitalisation exercise, saying it was capable of misleading the public and undermining confidence in both the regulator and Nigeria’s insurance industry.
“The Commission categorically states that the publication is false, misleading, malicious, and a deliberate misrepresentation of facts designed to misinform the public, undermine regulatory processes, and cast aspersions on the integrity of the Commission and its officials,” it stated.
The regulator specifically denied claims suggesting that the Commissioner for Insurance or any of its directors had been indicted, charged or found culpable in connection with any fraudulent activity arising from the recapitalisation process.
According to NAICOM, the allegations contained in the publication were speculative and unsupported by any finding of wrongdoing against its officials.
“The allegations presented in the publication are entirely unsubstantiated, speculative, and misleading. They do not accurately reflect the true circumstances of the matter and appear calculated to create a false narrative capable of eroding public confidence in the Commission and the Nigerian insurance industry,” it said.
NAICOM explained that the recapitalisation exercise was carried out pursuant to the Nigerian Insurance Industry Reform Act (NIIRA) 2025 and regulatory guidelines issued by the commission as part of its statutory responsibility to strengthen the financial capacity, solvency and resilience of insurance companies and protect policyholders.
The dispute comes against the backdrop of a continuing disagreement between NICON Insurance, Nigeria Re and NAICOM over the implementation of the new recapitalisation framework introduced under NIIRA 2025.
The two companies have challenged aspects of NAICOM’s requirements, including an alleged one per cent capital injection fee and other processing and verification charges prescribed under the commission’s Minimum Capital Requirement Guidelines.
They have also challenged a directive requiring existing insurance operators to place their entire capital injection funds in an escrow account with the Central Bank of Nigeria, arguing that Section 16(3) of NIIRA 2025 requires only a 10 per cent statutory deposit with the apex bank.
According to the companies, those amounts exceeded their adjusted capital requirements of ₦16 billion for NICON Insurance and ₦28 billion for Nigeria Re. They also said they deposited ₦2.5 billion and ₦3.5 billion respectively with the CBN pursuant to Section 16(3) of NIIRA 2025.
According to the companies, those amounts exceeded their adjusted capital requirements of ₦16 billion for NICON Insurance and ₦28 billion for Nigeria Re. They also said they deposited ₦2.5 billion and ₦3.5 billion respectively with the CBN pursuant to Section 16(3) of NIIRA 2025.
NAICOM, however, insisted that it remains legally empowered to carry out its regulatory functions despite references by the companies’ promoters to court proceedings surrounding the dispute.
“NAICOM remains fully empowered and obligated to discharge its functions in accordance with extant legislation and regulatory requirements,” the commission said.
Addressing the reported involvement of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, NAICOM acknowledged that the anti-graft agency had requested information and explanations from it concerning allegations circulated by the same promoters in sections of the media.
The commission said it supplied the EFCC with the information and clarifications requested, stressing that responding to an investigative agency should not be portrayed as evidence that any official had been detained, indicted or found guilty of wrongdoing.
“At no time did the Commission receive any finding of wrongdoing in relation to the matters on which clarification was sought,” NAICOM stated.