The Chairman of the Alliance for Economic Research and Ethics (AERE), Dele Oye, has said Uber’s decision to exit Nigeria after 12 years has exposed gaps in the country’s transport and regulatory system, particularly in competition, consumer choice, airport operations and governance.
In a statement, Oye said the exit of the global ride-hailing company should prompt a broader review of how Nigeria regulates emerging mobility platforms.
He stressed that regulation should protect security and the public interest without creating unnecessary barriers to competition or increasing transportation costs for consumers.
Uber announced on September 2, 2026, that it would wind down its ride-hailing operations in Nigeria after 12 years. The company said the decision followed a review of its business priorities and investment focus across Africa and specifically stated that its exit was unrelated to the recent directive by the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) concerning e-hailing operations at Nigerian airports.
Oye cautioned against attributing Uber’s departure to any single factor, noting that available evidence did not establish that the FAAN measures caused the company’s decision.
He, however, said the timing of the exit, amid an intense dispute over e-hailing operations at airports, raised legitimate questions about Nigeria’s regulatory environment and its implications for consumers and mobility businesses.
“The issue is not whether Nigeria should regulate airport transport. It must. Airports are sensitive security environments, and authorities have a legitimate responsibility to know who is transporting passengers from their premises,” Oye said.
“The question is whether regulation is transparent, proportionate and designed in a way that protects both security and competition.”
Oye said recent developments at Nigerian airports had highlighted the need for greater transparency in the regulation of transport services.
FAAN, however, said its framework was aimed at improving the identification of drivers and vehicles, operational visibility, passenger safety, and the management of solicitation and touting within airport premises.
The Authority also explained that its ACHRAMS platform was designed as an airport management and operational visibility system, rather than an e-hailing platform intended to compete with Uber or Bolt.
Oye said the public experience surrounding airport transport had nevertheless exposed wider concerns over affordability and competition.
He cited a reported case in which an airport car-hire desk quoted an American traveller N30,000 for a journey to Ikeja GRA, compared with a reported Uber fare of about N6,000 to N8,000 for the same journey.
The traveller was subsequently reported to have obtained an inDrive ride for N6,100 after leaving the airport perimeter.
Oye stressed that the figures should not be interpreted as evidence that every airport taxi charges N30,000 or that every app-based journey costs N6,000 to N8,000.
He said, however, that the disparity was significant enough to warrant scrutiny of how competition, pricing and consumer choice operate within regulated airport environments.
“A captive market is not necessarily an illegal monopoly, and a concession is not automatically anti-competitive,” Oye said.
“But when consumers have limited alternatives and prices differ sharply, the responsibility of public authorities is to explain the arrangement clearly and demonstrate that the rules are fair, transparent and proportionate.”
He warned against what he described as “regulation by invoice”, where licensing requirements, access conditions, integration demands and concession charges become difficult for the public to distinguish from revenue-raising measures.
According to him, every airport transport requirement should clearly identify the safety or operational risk it addresses, the compliance cost imposed on operators and the service provided in return.
He also called for comparable rules for Uber, Bolt, inDrive, traditional car-hire companies and other licensed operators, covering driver identification, vehicle standards, insurance, incident reporting and passenger complaints.
“Equal treatment does not necessarily mean identical treatment,” he said. “It means that differences in regulatory treatment must be justified by evidence.”
Oye further urged FAAN and other relevant authorities to preserve consumer choice within secure airport environments by establishing designated pick-up areas, verifying drivers and controlling solicitation without making one form of transport the practical default.
He said fare information, approved operators, concession arrangements and complaint mechanisms should be clearly displayed at airports and made available online.
The development comes as Bolt, another major ride-hailing platform, reached an operational agreement with FAAN and was cleared to resume operations at FAAN-managed airports on August 27, after the Authority had earlier moved to establish a unified framework for e-hailing operations.
Oye said the development demonstrated that security regulation and digital mobility could coexist if the rules were clear and fairly administered.
He also urged the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) to continue its examination of Uber’s withdrawal, particularly regarding outstanding customer obligations, payments and consumer redress.
He cautioned, however, that any FCCPC investigation should not be interpreted as evidence of wrongdoing by Uber before a formal finding is made.
“Investigation is about establishing facts, not finding a convenient villain,” he said.
Oye said Uber’s departure would have implications beyond passengers, potentially affecting drivers, vehicle financiers, mechanics, fuel retailers and other participants in Nigeria’s mobility ecosystem.
He noted that Uber had not publicly disclosed the number of drivers or riders affected by the withdrawal and warned against publishing unsupported estimates of job losses.
According to him, the eventual impact would depend on whether drivers migrate to Bolt, inDrive and other platforms, continue operating informally or leave ride-hailing altogether.
He said the wider lesson from the Uber episode was that Nigeria did not need less regulation but “better regulation” — rules that are clear, risk-based, published in advance, fairly administered and subject to review.
“Nigeria should not have to choose between security and affordability, or between regulation and innovation,” Oye said.
“The objective should be a mobility system in which passengers have choice and transparent prices, drivers have access to opportunities, platforms can compete fairly, and regulators can enforce safety without making lawful participation prohibitively costly.”
He said Nigeria’s investment climate was judged not only by tax rates and macroeconomic indicators but also by the everyday experience of businesses, workers and consumers interacting with public institutions.
“Uber is gone from Nigeria’s ride-hailing market. The lesson should not be that regulation is the enemy of enterprise. The lesson should be that regulation loses legitimacy when its public purpose cannot be seen in the lives of the people it governs,” Oye said.
The post Uber exit exposes Nigeria’s transport, regulatory gaps — Oye appeared first on Vanguard News.