KBA Challenges IRA's 'Illegal' Ban on Bancassurance Service Fees

The legal confrontation between the Kenya Bankers Association (KBA) and the Insurance Regulatory Authority (IRA) marks a critical inflection point for the country’s financial services integration. At the heart of the dispute is an IRA circular that effectively dismantles the current economic model of bancassurance—a sector where banks leverage their branch networks to sell insurance products. By declaring override commissions, administration fees, and profit-sharing arrangements 'unlawful,' the regulator is attempting to force a shift toward gross premium remittance. This move would require banks to remit 100% of collected premiums to insurers before receiving any compensation, rather than deducting their agreed-upon commissions at the source.

From a regulatory standpoint, the IRA appears to be targeting transparency and the potential for fee-loading within the insurance value chain. However, the KBA, led by CEO Raimond Molenje, contends that this reclassification of service-based fees is an overreach that ignores the operational realities of the 24 registered bancassurance intermediaries in Kenya. Bancassurance currently accounts for approximately 10% of the insurance industry’s total volume, contributing at least Sh35 billion to gross written premiums. The KBA argues that the sudden removal of these revenue streams will not only hurt bank profitability but also discourage the very institutions that have been instrumental in driving insurance penetration across the Kenyan population.

“

The legal confrontation between the Kenya Bankers Association (KBA) and the Insurance Regulatory Authority (IRA) marks a critical inflection point for the country’s financial services integration.

The timing of the legal challenge is particularly sensitive. The IRA has signaled its intent to begin compliance audits by the end of March 2026. KBA’s legal counsel, Georgiadis Khaseke, warned the High Court that if these audits proceed under the framework of the contested circular, banks risk receiving 'qualified financial' statements from auditors. Such a development could have cascading effects on bank valuations, credit ratings, and investor confidence, as qualified opinions often signal underlying regulatory or financial instability to the market.

This case highlights a broader trend in RegTech and financial oversight where traditional commission-based models are coming under intense scrutiny for consumer protection reasons. However, the KBA's argument suggests a lack of procedural fairness and a failure to consider the 'auxiliary services' banks provide, such as policy administration and premium collection infrastructure. If the court sides with the IRA, banks may be forced to radically restructure their insurance subsidiaries or exit the market entirely, potentially leaving a significant gap in the distribution of health, motor, and life insurance products.

Looking forward, the High Court’s decision will serve as a major precedent for how much latitude Kenyan regulators have to unilaterally alter established commercial fee structures. For legal and compliance officers in the region, the outcome will determine the future viability of the 'one-stop-shop' financial services model. If the ban stands, we can expect a period of significant consolidation or a shift toward fee-for-service models that are decoupled from premium volume, requiring a total overhaul of existing bancassurance contracts and IT systems used for premium processing.