The Nation Newspaper

Tag: revised

  • CEOs worry over revised microinsurance guidelines

    Some Chief Executive Officers have expressed worry over the revised guidelines introduced for microinsurance business by the National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) in the country.

    Part of the developments from the revised guidelines indicate that insurance companies already offering microinsurance products as window operators would need to get a fresh microinsurance licence to continue to sell their products.

    Also, apart from the fact that they would need to earmark a statutory deposit and capital base, they will have to set up new offices across the federation, recruit new staff and train them.

    A managing director of one of the affected companies, who spoke under a condition of anonymity, said the fallout of the revised guidelines would incur additional costs, at least, for now.

    He expressed worry over the motive behind the move to issue a separate licence for microinsurance.

    He said NAICOM should have used conventional insurers to sell microinsurance products instead of creating a new operational license, saying, this is unsettling the industry.

    Another CEO, who also spoke on condition of anonymity said, some of the insurance companies were already offering microinsurance products and services and that it would have been sensible to rejig the microinsurance guideline to empower operators by mandating them to offer the services instead of issuing fresh licences to microinsurance operators.

    He said: “There would be influx of investors initially, but will close shops with time, because they lack the expertise to run a successful microinsurance outfit. The existing operators offering microinsurance products would be put under serious financial threat, at a time the industry is also planning to recapitalise.

    “The companies are not ready and not in mood to insure this additional costs, at least, not now. I am not sure that NAICOM has the capacity to monitor these microinsurance companies, when it is even struggling to adequately supervise the existing conventional insurance companies.”

    The Commission’s Head, Corporate Affairs, Rasaaq Salami, said the commission has already taken into consideration, companies  offering microinsurance and is ready  to work with the companies based on their peculiarities.

    He said the guidelines are not final as they are only revised from the old guidelines introduced in 2003.

    He said: “As part of the Commission’s determination to improve financial inclusion in Nigeria, particularly to the underserved and excluded segment of the populace, the Commission has reviewed the Microinsurance Guidelines of 2013, and hereby releases a revised guideline.

    “The Revised Microinsurance Guidelines will become effective from January 1, 2018. The guideline is part of the financial inclusion strategy to stimulate growth in the sector especially the retail end of the market, drive insurance penetration and service the lower income earners who hitherto have been excluded from insurance”, he added.

    The guidelines, which come to effect on January 1, 2018 establishes uniform set of rules, regulations and standards for conduct of microinsurance business.

    The high points from the revised guidelines are from Sections 2, 3 and 4 as against the previous guidelines released in 2013 when business was established in the country.

    “Section 2 explains the  Microinsurance Market Structure and states the classification of microinsurance underwriters as Unit Microinsurer, State Microinsurer and National Microinsurer. Section 3 explains Registration Requirements states the minimum capital requirement for Unit Microinsurer as N40 million; State Microinsurer as N100 million and National Microinsurer as N600 million.

    “Section 4 explains Prudential Standards and states that any microinsurer intending to commence microinsurance business shall have a minimum capital as stipulated in Section 3 or as may be issued by the Commission from time to time.

    “Similarly, a microinsurer shall maintain with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) a statutory deposit of 10 per cent of the minimum capital requirement.A Unit Microinsurer shall, in respect of its insurance business in Nigeria, maintain at all times a 50 per cent Liquidity Margin being the excess of the value of its admissible current assets in Nigeria over its current liabilities in Nigeria.

    “A state microinsurer shall, in respect of its Insurance business in Nigeria, maintain at all times a 35per cent Liquidity Margin being the excess of the value of its admissible current assets in Nigeria over its current liabilities in Nigeria, while a National Microinsurer shall, in respect of its insurance business in Nigeria, maintain at all times a 25 per cent liquidity margin being the excess of the value of its admissible current assets in Nigeria over its current liabilities in Nigeria”.

  • NAICOM issues revised micro insurance guideline

    •To serve low income earners, others

    The National Insurance Commission (NAICOM) has released a revised microinsurance guideline for the underserved and excluded segment of the populace.

    The commission said the guideline was also introduced as part of the financial inclusion strategy to stimulate growth in the insurance subsector especially the retail end of the market and drive insurance penetration.

    The guideline, which comes to effect on January 1, 2018, establishes uniform set of rules, regulations and standards for conduct of microinsurance business.

    The guideline was made available to reporters by the Commission’s Head, Corporate Affairs, Rasaaq Salami in Lagos.

    The high points from the revised guideline are from Section 2, 3 and 4 as against the previous guidelines released in 2013 when business as established in the country.

    “Section 2 explains the  Microinsurance Market Structure and states the classification of microinsurance underwriters as Unit Microinsurer, State Microinsurer and National Microinsurer.

    “Section 3 explains Registration Requirements states the minimum capital requirement for Unit Microinsurer as N40 million; State Microinsurer as N100 million and National Microinsurer as N600 million.

    “Section 4 explains Prudential Standards and states that any microinsurer intending to commence microinsurance business shall have a minimum capital as stipulated in Section 3 or as may be issued by the Commission from time to time.”

    The guidelines also showed that: “On statutory deposit, a microinsurer shall maintain with the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) a statutory deposit of 10 per cent of the minimum capital requirement.

    “As regards liquidity status, a Unit Microinsurer shall, in respect of its insurance business in Nigeria, maintain at all times a 50 per cent Liquidity Margin being the excess of the value of its admissible current assets in Nigeria over its current liabilities in Nigeria.

    “A State Microinsurer shall, in respect of its insurance business in Nigeria, maintain at all times a 35% Liquidity Margin being the excess of the value of its admissible current assets in Nigeria over its current liabilities in Nigeria, while a National Microinsurer shall, in respect of its insurance business in Nigeria, maintain at all times a 25 per cent liquidity margin being the excess of the value of its admissible current assets in Nigeria over its current liabilities in Nigeria”, it read.

    In a statement also made available by Salami, the Commission stated that: “As part of the commission’s determination to improve financial inclusion in Nigeria, particularly to the underserved and excluded segment of the populace, the commission has reviewed the Microinsurance Guidelines of 2013, and hereby releases a revised guidelines.

    “The Revised Microinsurance Guidelines will become effective from January 1, 2018. The guideline is part of the financial inclusion strategy to stimulate growth in the sector especially the retail end of the market, drive insurance penetration and service the lower income earners who hitherto have been excluded from insurance”.

  • A revised Electoral Manual

    A revised Electoral Manual

    The Nigerian political scene is a pundit’s nightmare, with its immense capacity to shock. Consider the Ekiti State scenario. Many months after we all had concluded that the governorship election had been won and lost, a fellow showed up on television the other day to spill the beans, relaying graphic details of the plot that gave Ayo Fayose the governorship mantle. It all sounded so incredible, like a story in the hands of a master fiction writer, but the Fayose camp, which could have debunked Tope Aluko’s facts and figures, abandoned the message and went after the messenger. Now, the author of “the Great Confession” says his life is under threat.

    More shocks were to follow, with the Supreme Court nullifying the positions of the lower courts in the Rivers, Akwa Ibom and Taraba governorship elections, among others. Many politicians, exasperated and perplexed by their perception of justice in contradistinction to judgment, have contacted “Editorial Notebook” for advice, paving the way for that bestseller, “An electoral Manual”, which has been revised at least twice, to undergo another makeover.

    Here then is another revised edition of the manual, which will, no doubt, be of great help to those who intend not just to contest an election but to win and defend their hard earned victory.

    Always remember that every election is a war. You need an army of yours – well funded. If you have a President who cares little about the  ambush-and-finish-off politics that is common here, the better for you. The Armed Forces will simply look the other way as your troops make mincemeat of your opponents on the eve of the election.

    How? Simple. Get your boys (your opponents will scorn them as thugs and roughnecks and bad boys and criminals and hoodlums; never mind; the end, as they say, justifies the means) to visit the homes of some key members of the opposing party, fire some shots and spill as much blood as possible. You will be surprised that the next day, only a few stubborn supporters of your  opponents will have the guts to come out for voting.

    The field is, automatically, open for you and all your agents to manipulate the accreditation – card reader or no card reader–, stuff the ballot and award the votes in the score forms you must have kept in a secure place for this great day. Some of your opponent’s supporters will complain that the card reader is not working and, in frustration, walk away. Better for you.

    At the end of it all, reporters will seek your view on the exercise. You will, of course, praise it as the best in recent times. “Kudos to INEC; they have really improved. Materials arrived early and accreditation was orderly. Voting was peaceful,” you will tell the nosey fellows.

    Your opponent will cry like a baby whose lollipop has been snatched by an inconsiderate elderly fellow. He will scream murder and say that the ballot was rigged and that his supporters were murdered. Be calm.

    In no time, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) will declare you winner of the election. Your opponent will, naturally, disagree. His supporters will mount some street protests and malign INEC and its ever-dutiful officials, who will, of course, stand their ground and ask the aggrieved party to go to the tribunal – the only organ that can change the verdict.

    Go to church for thanksgiving and testify to how faithful the Almighty has been to you. After you have been sworn in as governor, do not abandon the path of rectitude. Go from one church to another, praying for victory in the upcoming legal battles. Your opponents will say you have turned yourself into a prayer project as Pentecostal giants lay hands on your balding head. Never mind. All is well.

    Then build up an unassailable war chest. Get the House of Assembly to approve that you borrow some billions – for what you will call some esoteric names, such as “Operation Zero Tolerance for Potholes” and “No More Refuse”. Critics, those idle fellows who abuse the rights of others by insisting that all behaviours must conform with their narrow standards, will call you reckless and spendthrift. Don’t reply. Afterall, the House is behind you.

    Head for Abuja to tidy up that end. Then there will be so much noise about you being found loitering around the office of the Chief Justice. Yes. Don’t you have the right to movement? Isn’t that office a public place? Don’t you have some issues the CJN ought to have settled and what is wrong in a reminder?

    Go back home and get set for the tribunal. You can cause panic in the camp of your opponent by threatening to unleash on the tribunal 10,000 witnesses who will testify that your election was free, fair and credible.

    Hire an army of good lawyers, those called SANs, who will storm the tribunal with facts and figures and summon witnesses to swear that you were indeed the people’s choice. Your opponent may call hundreds of witnesses; don’t be intimidated. If you can get 10, that is okay.

    At the end of it all, the tribunal may, in its limited wisdom, call your witnesses a bunch of liars and declare that you failed to prove beyond doubt that the trophy was rightly handed over to you and that a new election should be organised within 90 days. Don’t be downcast. Reject the judgment and head for the court of Appeal.  It is, after all, a marathon and not a dash.

    The SANs, aforementioned, will rise to condemn the tribunal and tell the court how it erred in law a thousand times to nullify your election, how it failed to prove that you cheated, how you perpetrated no violence (even if there was violence, weren’t you and your supporters the victims?), how some of your votes were unjustly cancelled and how you believe the court will play its role as the last hope of the common man by restoring the mandate , which thousands of your people freely gave you.

    But a note of caution: even the best of lawyers know that Homo proponit sed Deus disponit (that is to say, “man proposes, God disposes”). The Court of Appeal may find no merit in your lawyers’ fine arguments, their marvelous erudition and impeccable logic. “The appellant has not convinced this court that his case has merit and the appeal fails and I so declare,” His Lordship may say.

    Be courageous. Nothing good comes easy. To the Supreme Court you head. Again, your lawyers will deliver your case, deploying all manner of syllogisms, obfuscations and verbosity to impress their Lordships. By now, your opponent and his supporters should be thinking that it is all over, signed, sealed and waiting to be delivered. But for you, it has just begun. Go round and throw in everything.

    Thereafter, relax. You can even boast a little by saying you are sure the Supreme Court will right all the wrongs against you. After all, by now, you know what many do not know- that not all legal battles are won in the court room. Tell your supporters to get set for a carnival.

    To the consternation of all, including your opponents and all those legal giants who had predicted your fall, the Supreme Court will pronounce your election  valid.

    It will say that the card reader, one of the  planks on which your opponent’s case was built, is a stranger to the Electoral Act and that he failed to prove the allegation of rigging as he did not bring witnesses from all the polling units where the so-called irregularities took place.

    Besides, the eminent jurists will say the allegation of violence holds no water. Where are the victims who claimed to have had their heads smashed? People died; yes, but where is the proof? How many died and where are their death certificates, which must be authenticated by a certified forensic expert. Where are the doctors, nurses, morgue attendants, ambulance drivers and all others who can help the court determine that indeed there was violence? Was the violence substantial enough to affect the outcome of  the election? Whose fault?

    These allegations are criminal and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court cannot do this for the party making the allegations as it is trite in law that El incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat. That is to say “he who asserts must prove”.

    Disenfranchisement? This allegation must also be proven polling unit by polling unit and the police report must be consistent with that of the witnesses.

    Now you can mount a road show, revealing how the long and tortuous journey ended the way it did. At a thanksgiving service, you can dance, raise  your hands and sing:

    He has given me victory, I will lift Him higher

    Jehovah, I will lift Him higher

    The Lord has given me victory, I will lift  Him higher,

    Jehovah, I will lift Him higher

    You can then reveal how you have enjoyed the fruits of obedience, how an elder statesman would wake you up at night and tell you who to visit and you obeyed without questions. “I took all the advice and here we are today,” you will gleefully tell your excited audience. Applause. Applause.

    Your opponents will claim that, going by your utterances, you had foreknowledge of the judgment. In fact, some people will say that you “climbed onto the governor’s seat over bodies” and that you swam in blood to the Government House. Such hyperboles are common at  times like these. Just ignore them all.

    If you have suspended any member of your team who you are afraid could spill the beans, as Aluko did, quickly recall the fellow.

    So dear all, “here we are”. One more word. All rights reserved. No part of this manual may be reproduced, transmitted or stored in a retrieval system in any form or by any means without the permission of the copyright holder.

  • Wanted: A revised extradition policy

    Wanted: A revised extradition policy

    Is Nigeria too eager to extradite its citizens accused of crime? Yes, say some lawyers who have advocated a review of the country’s extradition policy, writes ERIC IKHILAE from Abuja.

    In recent time, the rate at which the Federal Government,through the office of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Mohammed Adoke (SAN) approaches the court for permission to extradite its citizens abroad for trial is becoming alarming.

    The zeal often displayed by state officials, in arguing such extradition applications in court, always gives the impression that the Nigerian government enjoys shipping abroad, its citizens, accused of involvement in criminal activities.

    Even for offences that could be adequately prosecuted by Nigerian courts, the Federal Government is always too eager to extradite Nigerians abroad for trial.

    The government cannot be totally faulted, in view of the fact that most of such extradition requests are hinged on existing mutual agreements/treaties between Nigeria and such foreign countries.

    The government’s seeming willingness to honour every extradition request is however worrisome, when viewed in the light of the fact that most foreign countries, particularly the United States, hardly allow their citizens to be tried in foreign territories.

    While most of these foreign governments hinge their decisions on the need to protect their national interests and those of their citizens, it seems such considerations never count in the case of Nigeria, where state officials even attempt to extradite Nigerians to countries with which the country has no extradition treaties.

    One of such cases was that involving Kingsley Edegbe.  The Federal Government had, upon a request by the Kingdom of Netherlands, applied to the Federal High Court, Abuja for an order extraditing Edegbe to Netherlands for trial over his alleged involvement in human trafficking.

    Edegbe was said to have allegedly belonged to an international syndicate involved in the trafficking of Nigerian girls to the Netherlands for prostitution and other related acts. He was said to be particularly wanted in connection with the trafficking of about six Nigerian girls, aged 25 from Nigeria to the Netherlands between 2006 and 2007.

    The documents filed along with the extradition application showed that, if successfully extradited, Edegbe would face charges bordering on human trafficking, human smuggling, falsification of travel documents, forgery of travel documents, abduction of minors from the authority having legal custody over them and participating in a criminal organization.

    The alleged offences were said to be punishable by deprivation of liberty of more than one year and covered by Articles 3, 5 and 16 of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime (TOC Convention), which Nigeria signed and ratified with its protocol on December 9 and 14 2004.

    But for Justice Ahmed Mohammed’s refusal to grant the order of extradition, Edegbe would have been shipped to a foreign land for trial, even when he allegedly trafficked Nigerian girls, an offence that the Nigerian courts could effectively prosecute.

    Justice Mohammed held, in his judgment, that the Federal Government failed to show that an extradition treaty existed between the country and Netherland on which such order of extradition could be based.

    “The court has not been shown any extradition treaty between Nigeria and the Netherlands upon which the application sought could have been granted.  The reliance on the United Nation’s Convention against Transnational Organised Crime fails because it is not an extradition treaty Act as envisaged by section 1 of the Extradition Act of Nigeria.

    “This court is not prepared to hold that an extradition treaty exits between the Netherlands and Nigeria when there is none. It is a dangerous precedent to abandon an existing law to enable the extradition of the suspect,” the judge said.

    Even when a the country sought the extradition from Sudan, of a Nigerian, Aminu Sadiq Ogwuche, the alleged mastermind of the Nyanya bomb blast, the Sudanese government did not jump at the request from Nigeria. It took months of rigorous scrutiny before the Sudanese government could release a Nigerian suspected to have been involve in the commission of a capital offence for trial in his country (Nigeria).

    Some few years ago some foreign citizens were accused of bribing some Nigerian officials in the Siemens, Julius Berger and Halliburton scandal. They were charged in Nigerian courts, but were never tried. Their companies were only made to pay some money as fine to the Nigerian government, after which the officials and their companies were let off the hook.

    However, two senior Siemens officials were found guilty of breach of trust and abetting bribery in Nigeria by a Munich court in Germany.

    Also, the Nigerian government once brought charges against a former ýUnited States’ Vice President, Dick Cheney, who it charged with corruption. He was charged as the Head of Halliburton when the company’s engineering subsidiary, KBR purportedly paid bribes to secure contract in Nigeria.

    The trial never went on as the Nigerian government, on October 14, 2010 ýdiscontinued the case. It was not in public domain whether Federal Government applied to the countries of these foreign nationals for their extradition to Nigeria for them to be tried here.

    Observers are of the view that since the Nigerian government is always eager to send its citizens abroad for trial, it should have also insisted that these foreign citizens were brought to Nigeria for trial.

    The latest case is that involving a former managing director of the Nigerian Security Printing and Minting (NSMPC) Plc, Emmanuel Okoyomon, who the Federal Government seeks extradite to the United Kingdom for trial.

    Okoyomon is purportedly wanted in UK over his alleged role in the bribery scandal involving officials of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), NSMPC and Securency International Pty of Australia, between 2006 and 2008.

    The government, through AGF applied on September 23 this year, for an order to enable it extradite Okoyomon to the United Kingdom based on a purported request by a UK’s Diplomatic Representatives, based on a supposed extradition treaty between the United States of America and Great Britain, signed in London on December 22, 1931.ý

    At the hearing of the extradition application recently before Justice Evoh Chukwu of the Federal High Court, Abuja, the AGF argued that the 1931 treaty  between the US and Great Britain was binding on Nigeriaý.

    Alex Iziyon (SAN), representing Okoyomon, disagreed, arguing that the treaty which the AGF relied on is not applicable to Nigeria and could not be a ground to extradite a Nigerian Citizen to the UK.

    “There is no treaty between the UK and Nigeria for the purpose of extradition of the respondent (Okoyomon) or any other person contrary to the submissions and assertions of the applicant (AGF). The treaty between the United States of America and Great Britain applied on to pre-independent Nigeria as part of the British colony at the time, and therefore subject at that time, to the treaty.

    “However, after Nigeria’s independence, all the imperial treaties and Acts applicable to Nigeria were repealed by the Extradition Act, Decree No. 87, 1966 which came into force on January 31, 1967.  In the absence of any Act of the National Assembly domesticating or making the said treaty applicable to Nigeria, no Nigerian can be extradited to the UK,” Iziyon said.

    Justice Chukwu has fixed judgment in this case for December 17.

    While many await the court’s judgment on this important case, lawyers have suggested that rather than ýsending Nigerians abroad for trial over cases that could be effectively tried by courts in the country, the government should consider strengthening the courts and prosecuting agencies like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to enhance their capacity to deal with such cases.

    Dr. Richard Chukwuemeka noted that the EFCC hasý experienced investigators and prosecutors, who can handle complex cases. He argued that pandering to foreign authorities by sending our citizens abroad for trial makes the country look cheap before other countries.

    “Nigerian authorities should be reminded that patriotism is not imposed on citizens. It is only when citizens believe that their country can protect their interests at any time that they will be willing to do anything for such a country. We should let citizens’ interests drive our policy direction in this country, particularly on foreign relations.” he said.

    Another  lawyer, Abdulazeez Ahmed of the Centre for Democratic Right (CDR), noted that the prison transfer agreement the country recently signed with the UK will be defeated if “we extradite our people to be tried in the UK only to have them shipped back to Nigeria to serve their prison terms. Those in authorities should reconsider the idea of taking Nigerians abroad to face trial at the behest of other countries, who are always reluctant to treat their citizens that way,” he said.