Burkina Faso AMGN EOA common mistakes
Burkina Faso AMGN EOA · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Confusing the roles of the CIMA Council of Ministers, the CIMA General Secretariat, the national supervisory authority (in Burkina Faso the ministry in charge of insurance, with the DGAI/DPA depending on the current institutional organisation) and the Commission de Contrôle des Assurances, and attributing a decision (e.g. granting or withdrawing a licence) to the wrong body.
The regional CIMA treaty layer and the national transposition layer overlap, candidates memorise an organigramme superficially and never map which body does what in a concrete procedure such as agrément, sanction or homologation of a tariff.
What to do instead
Build a one-page table with four columns (body, legal source, decision power, appeal route) and fill it from the CIMA Code articles and the Burkinabè transposing texts; for each of the three procedures (agrément, sanction, contrôle) write the exact chain of actors and rehearse it aloud.
Treating the CIMA Code as directly applicable in Burkina Faso without identifying the national transposition instrument, and citing a CIMA article as the sole legal basis for a national obligation.
Candidates study the Code in isolation because it is the most available text, and the exam question is usually phrased in a way that invites a Code citation.
What to do instead
For each major obligation, always state the double basis: the CIMA article plus the Burkinabè text that makes it enforceable locally; practise answering with the formula 'au plan communautaire … et en droit burkinabè …'.
Answering a question on information and consent duties by producing a generic 'the insurer must inform the client' statement without naming the pre-contractual information, the exact moment it is due, the sanction for breach and the burden of proof.
The protection-of-the-insured chapter is learned as a list of principles rather than as a set of enforceable duties with timing and consequences.
What to do instead
For each protective rule, memorise a four-part card: content of the duty, timing, person who owes it, consequence of breach (nullity, reduction of cover, liability of the intermediary); then apply it to a short fact pattern to test recall.
Applying life-insurance rules (waiting period, suicide exclusion, designation of beneficiary, surrender value, prescription) to a personal-accident or health product, or the reverse, without first classifying the risk as vie or non-vie.
Products are studied by commercial name rather than by legal nature, and mixed products sold by the same network blur the boundary.
What to do instead
Before answering any product question, state the legal branch explicitly and justify it by the nature of the risk and the capitalisation element; then list which rules follow from that classification and check the answer against them.
Computing an indemnity without applying the deductible, the sum-insured cap, the proportional rule for under-insurance, and the depreciation or vétusté in the right order, or omitting the recovery/subrogation step.
Candidates learn each rule separately and never practise a full claim file from declaration to settlement, so the sequencing is untested.
What to do instead
Drill complete claim scenarios numerically, always writing the five steps in the same order (evaluate loss, apply vétusté, apply proportional rule, apply deductible, cap at sum insured), then add the recourse against the third party as a separate line.
Confusing the different time limits in claims handling: the contractual deadline for the insurer to pay, the period given to the insured to declare the loss, and the prescription period for the action, quoting one figure for all three.
The numbers look similar and are memorised as a single block, and the distinction between délai de déclaration, délai de règlement and prescription is not anchored to who benefits from each.
What to do instead
Create a timeline diagram per branch (auto, santé, vie, dommages) with three distinct markers and the legal source of each; test yourself by covering the diagram and redrawing it, then verify against the text.
Mixing up the solvency margin, the minimum guaranteed capital (capital social minimum) and the technical provisions, and presenting the margin requirement as a fixed amount rather than a percentage of premiums or claims.
The three notions appear together in the same chapter and candidates retain only the idea that 'the company must have enough money'.
What to do instead
Write the three formulas side by side with their bases and thresholds, then solve two numerical cases, one life and one non-life, showing the calculation of the required margin and the coverage by eligible own funds.
Producing an accounting entry or a technical provision calculation that ignores the specificities of insurance accounting (acquisition cost deferral, unearned premium provision, outstanding claims provision, equalisation and catastrophe provisions) and treats the insurer like an ordinary trading company.
Candidates with a general accounting background transpose standard entries mechanically and have not internalised the SYSCOHADA insurance chart and the CIMA prudential rules.
What to do instead
Learn the insurance-specific accounts and the provisioning methods as templates, then redo past entries by hand for a premium earned over the year and for a claim reserve, checking the result against the expected balance.
Describing the insurance intermediary's duties vaguely ('advise the client well') instead of naming the registration requirement, the mandatory disclosure of status and remuneration, the duty to compare and justify the proposal, and the rules on receiving premiums.
Deontology is revised as general professional ethics rather than as a set of codified, sanctionable obligations specific to intermediation.
What to do instead
Rewrite each duty as an actionable behaviour with its legal basis and the sanction attached, and practise short scenarios where the intermediary faces a conflict of interest or an unregistered sub-agent, stating exactly which rule is breached.
Confusing the roles of the agent, the broker and the direct producer in a given situation, in particular on who represents whom, who holds the mandate to bind the insurer, and who may collect premiums or handle claims.
The categories are learned by commercial function rather than by legal mandate, and the same person may hold several registrations.
What to do instead
Build a comparison grid (mandate, representation, remuneration, premium handling, liability, registration) and, for each of five short scenarios, decide the correct status and justify it by the mandate rather than by the job title.