The Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) has since added another layer of complexity by publicly stating their strong suspicion that the robbery involved inside help. This raises serious questions about insurance coverage and contractual obligations.
The robbery, which unfolded in a mere 149 seconds, involved six armed robbers targeting a SafeGuard Security cash-in-transit van. However, the narrative is far from straightforward.
This statement places the responsibility for the security of the cash squarely on SafeGuard Security after it left the bank’s premises.
Adding fuel to the fire, SafeGuard Security CEO Andrew Mallon publicly criticised Ecobank for failing to disclose the unusually large sum of money being transported. In a statement released a day after the cash robbery, Mallon stated: “We wish to remind all customers of their responsibility to work within their contracted limits… and to communicate clearly with us if a cash movement is to be out of the ordinary. This allows us to plan and approach the risks appropriately.”
He emphasised that a US$4 million transaction was “well outside any contracted limits for Safeguard and almost certainly the security industry Africa wide,” and that Ecobank’s failure to communicate this “places the safety of our staff, our security teams and your cash at considerable risk.”
Mallon’s statement hints at potential insurance complications. If Ecobank failed to adhere to the agreed-upon limits, insurers may refuse compensation for losses exceeding those limits. This significantly impacts Ecobank’s financial recovery prospects, already burdened by the substantial loss. The situation appears to have devolved into a blame game between Ecobank and SafeGuard, with each party attempting to deflect responsibility.
COZWVA visited Safe Gaurd training camp. This is what we discovered and we realized why robbers managed to escape with US$4 million at Ecobank in Bulawayo.
The training is hilarious
🤣🤣🤣🤣🙌🏻 pic.twitter.com/a6b86YfVQL
— COZWVA (@cozwva) October 15, 2024
What makes the situation even more complicated is the fact that the ZRP has publicly revealed its suspicion that the heist was an inside job.
Meanwhile, Ecobank has temporarily closed its Parkade Branch in Bulawayo to facilitate a thorough investigation.
The Insurance Council of Zimbabwe (ICZ) has clarified the various insurance policies available to banks to mitigate such risks. These include cash-in-transit insurance, fidelity guarantee, professional indemnity, and property insurance. The ICZ explained that the duration of these policies is negotiable, with annual terms being the most common, but shorter or longer durations can be arranged.
In response to questions about the claims process, the ICZ outlined the steps involved: claim notification, filing a detailed claim with supporting documentation, claim assessment by the insurer (including investigations to verify the circumstances and amount of the loss), and finally, claim settlement (reimbursement of the insured amount, net of any excesses). The ICZ confirmed that Ecobank, as the policyholder, would be responsible for paying the insurance premiums. Security companies, such as SafeGuard, typically hold professional indemnity insurance to cover themselves against negligence.
The implications of non-compliance with prescribed security measures are significant. Breaches of policy conditions can lead to claim repudiation. The ICZ stressed the importance of both parties adhering to agreed-upon security measures to minimise risks.
