The Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) has clarified the circumstances behind Uber’s exit from Nigeria, stating that its discontinuation of operations has nothing to do with a recent disagreement with the airport authority.
FAAN’s clarifications come on the heels of an unfortunate narrative gaining traction in the air travel and related ecosystems.
Speaking in an interview, FAAN’s Director of Public Affairs and Consumer Protection, Mr Henry Agbebire, said such a wild narrative deserves to be challenged, not by FAAN, but by Uber itself.
Agbebire said Uber has expressly stated that its decision followed a review of its ‘evolving business priorities and investment focus across Africa.’
He said, ‘More significantly, the company has clarified that its exit is not related to the recent FAAN directive concerning e-hailing operations at Nigerian airports. That should settle the central question. FAAN did not drive Uber out of Nigeria. Uber says so.
Indeed, Uber is exiting Nigeria and Uganda while maintaining that it remains committed to Sub-Saharan Africa and sees long-term opportunities across the region. That points far more convincingly to a corporate investment decision than to an airport dispute in Nigeria.
‘But there is a bigger story Nigerians should consider. This did not begin with FAAN. Uber’s challenges in Nigeria did not suddenly emerge at the airport.’
Investigations reveal that for years, the company and the broader ride-hailing industry have faced questions around regulation, driver welfare, data sharing, passenger protection, accountability and operational control.
Investigations further reveal that Lagos State’s experience with the e-hailing company has been instructive.
The State Government, reports indicate, had to introduce and enforce regulatory requirements covering safety, driver identification, operational standards, and government access to relevant trip information.
Agbebire said in 2024, Uber reportedly resisted or sought additional time over Lagos’ requirement for real-time trip data, while other operators were more forthcoming.
He said, ‘This was Lagos State, not FAAN.’ This shows that the fundamental question of accountability surrounding ride-hailing platforms predates the current airport controversy.
‘Then consider the drivers. For years, Nigerian ride-hailing drivers have complained about commissions, fares, fuel costs, deactivations, insecurity and difficult working conditions. The discontent became serious enough to trigger protests and threats of coordinated shutdowns.
‘There have also been persistent reports of drivers taking passengers offline. Uber’s own rules prohibit such conduct. Yet when drivers believe that commissions, fares and operating costs make an official trip less attractive, the temptation to negotiate directly with passengers increases. When that happens, everyone loses. The passenger loses traceability and platform protection. The regulator loses visibility. The platform loses control of the journey. That is not simply a driver problem. It is a platform-governance problem.’
‘Then comes the accountability question. Uber has also historically maintained a legal distinction between itself and the drivers who provide transport through its platform. That distinction has been tested before Nigeria’s National Industrial Court, including arguments about drivers’ independent-contractor status and Uber’s potential vicarious liability.
‘The broader public-policy question is therefore legitimate: If a company provides the technology, controls the platform, determines its operating rules, facilitates payment, monitors journeys and places its brand between passenger and driver, where should responsibility begin and end when things go wrong?
‘That is not a FAAN question. It is a question Nigeria is entitled to ask of every technology-driven transport operator.’
To deepen the clarification, Agbebire said there is a strong case for FAAN, as airports are not ordinary roads but controlled security environments carrying millions of passengers and thousands of vehicles.
He said FAAN’s position was not that Nigerians should stop using e-hailing services, but that commercial transport operating within airport premises must be identifiable, accountable, and subject to a framework that enables the authority to know who is operating, which vehicles are involved, and how incidents can be managed.
He said, ‘That is not hostility to innovation. It is responsible airport management. The experience with Bolt is particularly revealing. Following engagement with FAAN and resolution of outstanding operational issues, Bolt was cleared to resume airport operations.
‘That tells us something important: the objective was never to eliminate e-hailing. It was to establish the conditions under which e-hailing can operate responsibly within an airport environment.
‘So, why is Uber leaving? Perhaps we should stop asking, ‘Why did FAAN chase Uber away?’ The more appropriate question is: ‘Why did Uber decide that Nigeria no longer fits its investment priorities?’ Uber has answered that question. It reviewed its business priorities. It reviewed its investment focus. It made a corporate decision to leave Nigeria and Uganda while maintaining operations and investment elsewhere in Africa. That decision belongs to Uber.
‘To attribute it to FAAN, contrary to Uber’s own explanation, is to reduce a complex corporate decision to one recent disagreement and, in doing so, mislead the Nigerian public.
‘Suffice to say that Nigeria’s mobility market remains. The passengers remain. The drivers remain. The demand remains. The opportunity remains. Uber’s departure may therefore create space for operators willing to invest for the long term, understand Nigeria’s regulatory environment, work constructively with government, support their driver-partners and, above all, accept that technology does not eliminate accountability.’
Agbebire said Nigeria should welcome innovation while insisting on responsibility.
He said, ‘FAAN does not compete with Uber. FAAN’s mandate is not to run a ride-hailing business. Its responsibility is to ensure that activities within Nigerian airports are safe, secure, orderly and accountable.’
‘An airport authority should not apologise for insisting on that. Uber is leaving because Uber has decided to leave. FAAN’s responsibility is to ensure that anyone operating commercially within Nigeria’s airports does so within a framework that protects passengers and the integrity of the airport environment. Those two facts can and should coexist.
‘Perhaps that is the real lesson from the Uber episode: Technology may connect the passenger to the driver, but the responsibility for keeping Nigeria’s airports safe, secure and accountable cannot be outsourced.’