General News
Aviation Insurance: Need for a Consortium
Aviation insurance is one of the products of insurance which though lucrative, is yet to attract the expected volume of business in Nigeria. Unlike other areas which have continued to receive tremendous embrace, only a few insurance companies have dared to show very active involvement. One of the reasons often advanced for this is that it is a highly specialized and costly venture.
A comprehensive aircraft policy involves insurance cover of the aircraft itself, the cargo they carry and of particular interest; the operators’ liability for any damage done to the third party property as well as injury or death to passengers.
However, while motor vehicle insurance continues to generate the greatest volume of premium to most insurance companies, aviation insurance is still treated as a sacred area where only the lion- hearted dare to tread.
Airline business has grown in Nigeria to an enviable height. Gone are the days when only the national carrier and one or two others with few aircrafts dominated the scene. Today, we have so many registered airlines with so many aircraft on their fleet. Yet, the industry is not attracting the expected volume of business.
Over time, there has been scramble for business in the oil and gas sector without paying a corresponding attention to the aviation sector. What is responsible for this lack of interest, in spite of the lucrative ness of the sector?
Isaac Omoakia is an insurance consultant with interest in aviation insurance. He said the reason aviation insurance has not been generating the expected interest could be traced to the high risk involved in the business.
He explained that before taking up an aviation insurance cover, the number of aircraft in the fleet of the airline has to be considered alongside the premium that could be generated from such. He said aviation insurance is in place but not with the kind of enthusiasm with which other classes of insurance are being pursued.
One reason there may have been this slow pace, he said, is that “Nigerian airline operators usually go for old aircraft whose airworthiness cannot be guaranteed, and “how would you expect an insurance company to cover such unworthy aircraft especially in a country where until recently operators hardly take out their airplanes for the necessary checks.”
Omoakia added that the number of air crashes that the country has witnessed in the past he said is nightmarish enough to scare away potential insurers.
The result is that because of the high risk involved, any crash would attract huge claims, a situation which would wipe off whatever premiums that such policy may have attracted in the first place.
This, therefore, can be explained from the point of view of some operators who though realize the lucrative ness but are cautious in their moves to cover aviation. According to Mr. Ladipo Ajayi, managing director of Lasaco Assurance Plc, while commenting at a forum, most of the aircraft in Nigeria are old, stressing that in giving insurance cover, the nature of risk has to be considered. Aviation insurance is therefore such area where calculated risk has to be taken.
Omoakia called on insurance companies to form a consortium in the aviation insurance as they did with the oil and gas insurance. He explained that with this, operators would be better empowered to achieve higher retention capacity and bear higher risk.
He said the lack of a consortium in the areas explains why the few insurance companies with aviation cover do so only at the level of smaller aircraft which attract lower risk. These smaller aircraft like helicopters are not prone to the bigger hazards of passenger aircraft where a mishap could eat-up half of the entire capital base of an insurer and the reinsurance company put together.
While agreeing to his suggestion, Ibidapo Balogun, managing director of Equity Assurance is of the opinion that aviation insurance calls for serious attention. He said the level of aviation development today makes its necessary for operators to come together as they did in the oil and gas sector, under the local content policy of the Federal government.
Balogun said aviation insurance covers three main sections; the haul, passenger liability and the third party liability.
Further, he said under the haul cover, the plane must be insured against any damage that borders on technical areas.
Noting the bi-literal agreements in aviation, the passenger liability is bounded by international laws which may arise in the course of its flight. One peculiar area of aviation insurance is that the insured aircraft flies both locally and internationally. The situation therefore calls for minimum internationally accepted protection for passengers in case of crash resulting in injury and death of passengers.
Under the third party liability, the insurance could cover damage done to other people’s goods. An example of this could be found in the EAS passenger plane which crashed into a residential area in Kano some years ago. It goes therefore that because the aircraft over fly the areas populated by people and by extension, property, it becomes highly demanding to cover such areas.
To underscore the value of aviation insurance and why there seems to be a slow development, industry analysts say the minimum standards prescribed by international laws, make it a specialized area which calls for caution.
For instance, going by the international rule, a minimum of $100,000 is placed on the head of each passenger who dies in an air crash.
Omoakia identified this as one area why many insurers may be scared. He cited many air crashes that we have had in Nigeria and the attendant claims many of which the insurers involved are yet to completely settle. Using the minimum entitlement of $100,000 as a guide, Omoakia explained that the Nigeria insurance industry needs to do something to be able to remain competent in the sector.
Between 2002 till early part of this year, the aviation industry has been plagued by many crashes, occasioning death and wanton destruction of properties. For instance in 2002, 148 people perished in the EAS air crash. 96 lives were also wasted in the ADC crash in 2006.In 2005, 106 people died in a Sosoliso air crash while another 117 people were skilled in 2005 in the Bellview air disaster. Many lives have also been wasted in various military air mishaps such as the infamous 1992 disaster involving 158 young military officers. There was another ADC crash that consumed the lives of 142 people within same period. Stakeholders therefore are of the view that for the industry to be vibrant enough to cover higher risk in the aviation insurance, a consortium is needed as was done in the oil and gas sector, under the local content policy of the Federal Government.
Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) has announced that it will begin enforcing statutory requirements on the contents of company business letters from August 1, 2026, warning that defaulting companies will face sanctions.
The commission disclosed this in a public notice signed by its management and posted on its X handle on Wednesday.
Recall that under the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020, company business letters are required to clearly display key details, including the company’s registered name, registration number, directors’ present forenames or initials and surnames, any former forenames and surnames, and the nationality of every non-Nigerian director.
The requirement applies to all company business letters, including invoices, quotations, official correspondence and other business documents.
According to the CAC, the enforcement will cover the full application of Sections 304(1), 304(2) and 304(1)(c) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020.
The commission said, “Commencing the 1st day of August 2026, the Commission shall enforce the full application of the requirements of sections 304(1) & (2) and (1)(c) of the Act with respect to company business letters with attendant sanctions for non-compliance.”
It reminded companies registered under the Act “to state in legible characters on its business letters, the present forename or initials and surname; any former forename and surname; and nationality of every non-Nigerian director as well as the company’s name and registration number.”
The commission urged affected companies to comply with the provisions before the enforcement date to avoid sanctions.
“The Commission remains committed to transparency, accountability and customer satisfaction as it strives to build a more resilient and responsive corporate regulatory environment,” the statement added.
Using Artificial intelligence (AI) for travel planning saves time and simplifies trip prep but poses significant data security risks, as almost 86 percent of users report privacy concerns, according to Kaspersky’s latest findings.
For instance, sharing sensitive details like your passport number or credit card can expose you to data breaches and identity theft.
Hackers can also use AI to imitate airlines or hotels to steal your money.
However, data security risks awareness is also high, which security experts call a good sign.
Kaspersky global research, revealed what drives active AI users to charge chatbots and AI-powered tools with the important responsibility of travel planning and how they estimate the security of such services.
The survey shows that the primary motivation for turning to AI in travel planning is to save time and simplify preparation, with 73 percent of users globally pointing out these benefits.
Other important advantages of AI in traveling, named by 65 percent of respondents, are the search for information about the main attractions in the chosen location and personalised recommendations tailored to individual preferences. Additionally, 63 percent leverage AI to find the most favourable offers, while 61 percent trust it to uncover information that would otherwise be hard to find.
In fact, nowadays with the help of AI, an individual travel itinerary, matching all the requests and budget of a particular traveller, can be created in just a few clicks.
However, information provided by chatbots always needs to be double checked.
There have already been several instances where tourists encountered issues because they trusted AI too much and did not conduct their own research for the trip.
What is more, not only the information, but even links provided by AI need to be checked, as there may be malicious and phishing links among them.
Before clicking on a link from an AI chatbot it is recommended to check it with a cybersecurity solution, such as Kaspersky Premium, empowered with phishing detection.
AI and security
Apart from setting a route and searching for information, AI in travel planning in many cases is also responsible for booking hotels and even tickets, which inevitably requires sharing personal data.
The Kaspersky global survey revealed that not all travellers are ready to entrust AI with their personal information.
Almost half (48%) of global respondents see security risks in AI usage and try not to share any sensitive data with it.
Together with those, 37% who do not have many security concerns about AI still try to be careful while working with it.
86% of those who use AI for travel planning think about data security while working with these tools. Only 14% of travellers are confident that sharing any data with AI is totally secure.
According to the survey, travellers in Spain, the United Kingdom, Indonesia, Malaysia, and South Africa express the greater concerns about AI-related risks, while those in China, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia in contrast display higher confidence in the security of AI systems.
“The survey highlights a noteworthy level of caution among travellers who use AI, which is a promising sign. A rational attitude is crucial for any type of online interactions, especially when we talk about personal data sharing. After all, your ‘private’ conversations with AI can still be exposed to cyber threats, or a favourable offer discovered by a chatbot may turn out to be nothing more than a scam.
This doesn’t mean you should abandon these digital tools altogether. Instead, stay mindful, avoid oversharing personal information, and think carefully while choosing which task you can assign to the AI. By doing so, AI-powered services can evolve into reliable assistants that help you tackle a wide range of challenges safely and effectively,” commented, Vladislav Tushkanov, Group Manager at Kaspersky AI Technology Research Center.
Justice Yellim Bogoro of the Federal High Court in Lagos has declared the N60 billion fine imposed by the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) on Facebook Nigeria Operations Limited Illegal.
Justice Bogoro stated that ARCON regulator exceeded its legal authority and breached the company’s constitutional right to a fair hearing.
He, who made the declaration while delivering judgment in Suit marked, FHC/L/CS/2205/2024, declared ARCON’s Notice of Violation/Demand for Compliance dated 21 October 2024, unconstitutional, unlawful, null, and void, and barred the agency from taking further steps to enforce it.
The judge also held that ARCON lacked the statutory power to impose fines for alleged criminal violations under the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria Act, 2022, without first obtaining a conviction from a court or other competent tribunal.
The dispute arose from ARCON’s claim that Facebook Nigeria displayed advertisements on Facebook and Instagram to Nigerian audiences without prior approval from the Advertising Standards Panel, contrary to provisions of the ARCON Act and the Nigerian Code of Advertising.
Following these alleged breaches, the regulator ordered the company to cease displaying the advertisements and imposed an N60 billion penalty.
Apparently dissatisfied with the development, Facebook Nigeria, through Mofesomo Tayo-Oyetibo (SAN), its lawyer, challenged the action, arguing that ARCON lacked the legal authority to determine criminal liability or impose punitive sanctions via an administrative notice without allowing the company to defend itself.
The company also argued that it does not own or operate Facebook or Instagram, claiming both platforms are owned and controlled by Meta Platforms Inc., a separate foreign entity.
But ARCON, represented by Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), contended that Facebook Nigeria acts as Meta’s operation in Nigeria and should therefore be held responsible for regulatory violations related to advertisements on the platforms.
The regulator further argued that the notice was simply a compliance directive, allowing the company the option to comply, pay the specified violation fee, or face prosecution.
However, Justice Bogoro dismissed the regulator’s arguments.
The judge stated that Facebook Nigeria is a distinct legal entity from Meta Platforms Inc. and that ARCON failed to present credible evidence showing that the Nigerian company owns, operates, or controls Facebook or Instagram.
The court maintained that the argument that Facebook Nigeria represents Meta’s interests in Nigeria was insufficient to establish liability for the alleged advertising infractions.
Regarding fair hearing, the court ruled that ARCON violated Section 36 of the Constitution by accusing the company of misconduct and imposing a N60 billion fine without first hearing its defence.
Justice Bogoro also held that Section 57(4) of the ARCON Act explicitly requires the regulator to provide a fair hearing before imposing any penalty.
The court further found that the alleged violations were criminal because Section 34 of the ARCON Act designates the unlawful exposure of advertisements as an offence.
The judge also held that, since the Act stated that punishment can only be imposed “upon conviction,” ARCON had no authority to impose the N60 billion fine through an administrative process.
He insisted that, regardless of what ARCON called it, the demand was a fine that could only be imposed by a court following proper judicial procedures.
As a result, the court invalidated the Notice of Violation/Demand for Compliance.
It declared ARCON lacked authority to impose fines for breaches of Sections 34(3), 54, or other criminal provisions of the ARCON Act.
Justice Bogoro also issued a perpetual injunction preventing ARCON, its officers, agents, and associates from enforcing the October 21, 2024 notice against Facebook Nigeria.
CAC to Sanction Companies with Incomplete Business Letters From August 1
BVN Enrollments Hit 69.55m- NIBSS
CBN Warns against Rejection of N100 Banknotes
Data Protection Industry Hits N16.3Bn in 3 Years- NDPC
NCC Seeks Cost-Based Pricing Framework for Ducts
NASENI Moves to Digitize CCB’s 5m Assets Declaration and Operations
Mobile Internet Gender Gap Widest in Africa – GSMA
Nigeria Launches FreeTV Nationwide
CANAL+ Partners Samsung to Pre-Load DStv Stream on New Samsung TVs In Nigeria, Other African Countries
Lebara Nigeria Launches Lebara Play, Africa’s First Telecom-Owned Micro-Drama Platform
News2 days agoNRC, Ponzi Scheme Collapses Resulting Loss of Billions of Naira
General News3 days agoIHS Nigeria, FCT-HSES Concludes Clean Cooking Energy Campaign “Project Breathe Clean Air” in Abuja
E-Business3 days agoKaspersky Transforms Threat Intelligence Reporting into an Interactive Content Hub
News3 days agoMicrosoft to Lay Off 4,800 Workers
Broadcasting3 days agoNELFUND Investigates 34 Universities Over Students’ Missing Tuition Refunds
Telecom3 days agoAirtel Africa Cuts Diesel Dependence by 9.1m Litres
Telecom3 days agoA New Blueprint – How Strategic Collaboration is Rewriting the Narrative on Youth Drug Abuse
News3 days agoAccess Bank, Fifth Chukker and UNICEF Renew Commitment to Expanding Educational Opportunities for Nigeria’s Most Vulnerable Children