The House of Representatives on Monday commenced an investigation into the non-remittance of multi-billion-naira revenue belonging to the Federal Government by 25 erring insurance companies operating across the country.
Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Capital Market and Other Institutions, Hon. Kwamoti Laori, disclosed this during a meeting with the management of insurance companies at the National Assembly Complex in Abuja.
According to the lawmaker, among the 25 insurance companies allegedly involved in the financial infractions are International Energy Insurance, LASACO Assurance, Consolidated Hallmark, Guinea Insurance, AIICO Insurance, Axa Mansard, Mutual Benefit Assurance, and Linkage Assurance.
Others are Prestige Assurance, NEM Assurance, Sunu Assurance, Regency Assurance, Veritas Capital Assurance, Universal Insurance, Coronation Trust Insurance, Sovereign Trust Insurance, Cornerstone Insurance, Custodian PLC, Alliance & General, Industrial & General, Goldlink Insurance, and African Alliance.
While expressing displeasure over the absence of the Chief Executive Officers of the companies invited by the panel, Laori vowed that the House would not leave any stone unturned in its quest to complement President Bola Tinubu’s resolve to shore up the country’s revenue.
Expressing displeasure over the inability of the representatives of the insurance companies to answer some of the inquiries, he said: “We have insisted that the CEOs appear in person so that they can answer some of these. As you have seen, one of the companies’ CEOs sent someone who could not answer any of the allegations before the committee.
“That is not good, and that is why the committee still made this order that it is only the CEO who will appear in person, so they can come and answer for these allegations against them. It is in the public domain that the National Assembly is saddled with the responsibility to ensure compliance with statutory provisions. And where there are leakages in the revenue that should accrue to the Federation or the Federal Government, it is our duty to ensure that we put a stop to them.
“And that is exactly what we are doing. From our preliminary investigations and findings, there are a lot of infractions by these companies. That is why we invite them and place the cards before them and say, ‘Look, these are the infringements, and these are the costs that are supposed to be paid to the Federal Government in terms of revenue.’
“And we have not seen evidence of that. It is for them to come in and explain to us if they have paid, and then the case is closed. But if they have not paid, then they should go and pay.
“This is just as simple as that. But it appears that every time the National Assembly wants to do its work, you see people who run to court to stop the National Assembly. And tomorrow again, it is the same people that will come and accuse the National Assembly of not doing its duty.”
He said the committee was puzzled by the actions of some companies, questioning how the National Assembly could effectively carry out its oversight duties when invited parties, despite receiving prior notifications and relevant documents, choose to evade appearances by rushing to court.
He observed that such tactics were being employed to conceal infractions, resulting in substantial revenue losses for the Federal Government.
The lawmaker stated that although the President is striving to ensure adequate funds are available for the government to deliver on its promises to the people, private entities must not be permitted to undermine these efforts.
He emphasised that such actions should neither be tolerated nor condoned, and added that the committee remains committed to its mandate despite attempts to hinder its work.
Reacting to the court injunction submitted by some insurance firms invited by the subcommittee, Laori said: “In respect of the first issue, some of the companies ran to court, and they have served the House with court processes. It is for us, as the House, to sit down and look at the process. If it in no way goes to the basis of what we are doing here, we will definitely proceed. But if it does, then of course we have to await the decision of the court in respect of that.
“The law allows us to weigh what is before the court and to see if it goes to the root of what we are doing here. If it doesn’t, I assure you we are going to proceed. Except if it does, then we have no option but to put a hold on it pending the outcome of the court action.”
