.
Former Commissioner for Insurance and former chief executive of the National Insurance Commission (NAICOM), Mohammed Kari, has cautioned the Federal Government against intervening in regulatory decisions arising from Nigeria’s ongoing insurance industry recapitalisation.
Kari warned that political interference in matters within NAICOM’s statutory authority could weaken regulatory credibility, undermine investor confidence and create an uneven playing field for insurance companies that have complied with the new requirements.
Kari Challenges Push for Regulatory Intervention
In an open letter dated August 12, 2026, addressed to the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Kari criticised attempts by NICON Insurance and Nigeria Reinsurance Corporation (Nigeria Re) to obtain ministerial intervention over regulatory requirements linked to the implementation of the Nigerian Insurance Industry Reform Act (NIIRA) 2025.
The dispute centres on NAICOM’s requirements covering recapitalisation, capital verification and escrow arrangements.
Kari argued that allowing companies to negotiate regulatory requirements through political channels could transform regulatory enforcement into a matter of political discretion rather than compliance with established rules.
He said the issue extends beyond the two companies involved because the outcome could affect the credibility and structure of Nigeria’s wider insurance market.
Over 90% of Operators Have Complied
A key concern raised by the former NAICOM chief is the treatment of companies that have already met the recapitalisation requirements.
According to Kari, more than 90% of insurance operators have followed the prescribed process, including raising additional capital, depositing required reserves with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), undergoing regulatory verification and settling applicable fees.
He therefore argued that granting exemptions or special treatment to companies that have not completed the process could disadvantage operators that invested significant resources to comply with the rules.
Such an approach, he warned, could create a precedent in which companies seek political intervention rather than meet regulatory obligations.
Recapitalisation Designed to Strengthen the Sector
The controversy comes as NAICOM completes a major recapitalisation exercise intended to strengthen the financial capacity of insurance companies and improve their ability to meet policyholder obligations.
The regulator recently announced the successful completion of the recapitalisation process, saying higher minimum capital requirements would strengthen insurers’ capacity to absorb emerging risks and honour claims more effectively.
The exercise has also been positioned as part of broader efforts to build a stronger and more competitive Nigerian insurance industry.
Regulatory Independence at the Centre of Debate
Kari’s intervention has placed regulatory independence at the centre of the latest dispute.
The former insurance regulator argued that NAICOM must be allowed to exercise its statutory responsibilities without political pressure, particularly when enforcing requirements introduced as part of an industry-wide reform programme.
The concern is that selective intervention could weaken confidence in the consistency of Nigeria’s regulatory environment, particularly among companies and investors that have already committed capital to meeting the new rules.
Industry Faces Test of Reform Credibility
The disagreement highlights a broader challenge facing Nigeria’s insurance sector: ensuring that recapitalisation produces a stronger industry without undermining the regulatory framework established to achieve it.
For insurers that have completed the requirements, consistent enforcement is important to maintaining a level playing field. For regulators and policymakers, the challenge is balancing legitimate concerns from individual operators with the broader objective of strengthening the industry.
Kari’s warning therefore comes at a critical stage of the reform process, with the credibility of the recapitalisation exercise likely to depend not only on the amount of capital raised but also on whether the rules are applied consistently across the industry.
The debate ultimately raises a fundamental question for Nigeria’s insurance reforms: can the sector build stronger institutions if regulatory decisions remain vulnerable to political intervention?
