Court set to hear suit on FCCPC’s power over reinsurer
The Federal High Court in Lagos will on Thursday hear legal arguments likely to test the limits of anti-competitive behaviours in the reinsurance market and impose a new code of
The Federal High Court in Lagos will on Thursday hear legal arguments likely to test the limits of anti-competitive behaviours in the reinsurance market and impose a new code of conduct in the nation’s broader corporate community.
The suit followed an investigation of WAICA Reinsurance Corporation Plc by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) over an alleged pattern of gross violations.
FCCPC, the country’s foremost consumer protection and competition regulatory authority, insists that WAICA, a transnational company, in a deceptive manner, wilfully organised and conducted its business in violation of the law and thereby distorted the reinsurance market.
WAICA, based in Sierra Leone, is accused of violating sections of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (2018) in a manner that “grossly distorts” the reinsurance market in Nigeria and impairs fair competition.
The risk underwriter operates as a pan-African reinsurer with major regional offices in Accra (Ghana), Lagos (Nigeria), Abidjan (Côte d’Ivoire), and Tunis (Tunisia).
It was gathered that WAICA had witnessed significant market growth of about 100 per cent in Nigeria between 2018 and 2024, to secure dominance.
Read Also: FCCPC monitoring fuel prices amid Middle East war, says Bello
Legal analysts believe the outcome of the upcoming case will have far-reaching implications not only for the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS) in terms of more taxable income but also for the primary industry regulator, NAICOM, as well as the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) for more diligent oversight.
It is understood that WAICA filed the action preemptively to avoid liability after being confronted with its wrongdoing by the FCCPC investigation.
FCCPC claims in court papers that WAICA willfully violated the law and engaged in a pattern to prevent regulatory accountability to all relevant regulators.
The outcome of this case will certainly be monumental for regulatory accountability to both primary sector regulators and demonstrate the reach of the FCCPC to compel businesses to comply with even those sector regulations.
It will also clarify the extent of liability of the directors for the conduct of the company they superintend.
