Agency says Uber’s departure reflects its changing investment priorities, while defending tighter rules for ride-hailing services operating within Nigerian airports…..
The Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) has rejected claims that its recent disagreement with Uber was responsible for the ride-hailing company’s decision to withdraw from the Nigerian market.
FAAN said the narrative linking Uber’s exit to its airport operations directive was misleading, stressing that the company had already provided its own explanation for the decision.
The clarification was made by FAAN’s Director of Public Affairs and Consumer Protection, Henry Agbebire, who said Uber attributed its departure to a review of its “evolving business priorities and investment focus across Africa.”
According to Agbebire, Uber’s own explanation should put to rest suggestions that the airport authority forced the company out of Nigeria.
He said Uber is leaving both Nigeria and Uganda while maintaining that it remains committed to Sub-Saharan Africa and continues to see long-term opportunities across the region.
Agbebire argued that the development points more to a corporate investment decision than to the disagreement between Uber and FAAN over e-hailing operations at Nigerian airports.
However, he said the controversy surrounding Uber’s departure should not obscure the broader regulatory challenges that have confronted the ride-hailing industry in Nigeria for several years.
According to him, issues relating to regulation, driver welfare, data sharing, passenger safety, accountability and operational control have remained subjects of concern long before the latest airport dispute.
Agbebire pointed to Lagos State’s experience with Uber as an example of the regulatory challenges faced by the company.
He said the Lagos State Government had introduced requirements covering safety, driver identification, operational standards and access to relevant trip information as part of efforts to regulate the sector.
He further recalled that in 2024, Uber reportedly resisted or sought additional time to comply with Lagos State’s requirement for real-time trip data, while some other operators were more forthcoming.
“This was Lagos State, not FAAN,” Agbebire said, arguing that the accountability questions surrounding ride-hailing platforms did not originate from the airport authority.
He also highlighted concerns raised by drivers over commissions, fares, rising fuel costs, deactivations, insecurity and difficult working conditions.
According to him, the grievances became significant enough to trigger protests and threats of coordinated shutdowns by drivers.
Another issue, he said, was the practice of some drivers taking passengers offline despite platform rules prohibiting such arrangements.
Agbebire explained that when drivers feel commissions, fares and operating expenses make official platform trips less attractive, some may be tempted to negotiate directly with passengers.
He said such practices create problems for all parties because passengers lose the traceability and protections provided by the platform, regulators lose visibility over journeys, while the platform itself loses control of the trip.
He described the situation as a broader platform-governance issue rather than simply a problem caused by individual drivers.
Agbebire also raised questions about the relationship between ride-hailing platforms and the drivers operating through them, noting that Uber has historically maintained a legal distinction between the company and its drivers.
He said that distinction has been tested in legal proceedings before Nigeria’s National Industrial Court, including arguments surrounding the independent-contractor status of drivers and the extent of Uber’s potential vicarious liability.
Beyond Uber’s business model, Agbebire defended FAAN’s position on regulating commercial transport services operating within airport premises.
He said airports should not be treated in the same way as ordinary roads because they are controlled security environments serving millions of passengers and thousands of vehicles.
According to him, FAAN’s objective is not to prevent Nigerians from using e-hailing platforms, but to ensure that commercial transport operators within airports can be properly identified and held accountable.
He said the authority needs to know which operators and vehicles are providing services within airport premises and have mechanisms in place for addressing incidents when they occur.
“That is not hostility to innovation. It is responsible airport management,” Agbebire said.
He pointed to the experience of Bolt as evidence that FAAN’s policy was not aimed at eliminating e-hailing services from Nigerian airports.
According to him, Bolt was recently allowed to resume airport operations after engaging with FAAN and resolving outstanding operational issues.
Agbebire said the development demonstrated that the authority was prepared to work with e-hailing companies that meet the necessary requirements.
“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,” he said.
On Uber’s departure, the FAAN spokesperson urged the public to reconsider the question being asked about the development.
Rather than asking why FAAN allegedly “chased Uber away,” he said the more appropriate question was why Uber concluded that Nigeria no longer aligned with its investment priorities.
Agbebire maintained that Uber had already answered that question by citing changes in its business priorities and investment focus.
He said the company had chosen to leave Nigeria and Uganda while retaining operations and investment opportunities in other parts of Africa.
According to him, attributing the decision to FAAN, despite Uber’s own explanation, oversimplifies what could be a broader corporate decision.
Agbebire, however, stressed that Uber’s exit does not mean the end of opportunities in Nigeria’s mobility market.
He said the passengers, drivers and demand for ride-hailing services remain, creating opportunities for other operators prepared to commit to the Nigerian market over the long term.
He said companies seeking to take advantage of that opportunity would need to understand the country’s regulatory environment, engage constructively with government, support their driver-partners and recognise that technological innovation does not remove the need for accountability.
Agbebire said Nigeria should remain open to innovation while ensuring that businesses operating in critical environments comply with established safety and accountability standards.
He stressed that FAAN’s mandate is not to compete with Uber or operate a ride-hailing service, but to ensure that commercial activities within Nigerian airports are conducted safely, securely and in an orderly manner.
“An airport authority should not apologise for insisting on that,” he said.
Agbebire maintained that Uber’s decision to leave Nigeria and FAAN’s responsibility to regulate commercial activities at airports are separate issues that should not be conflated.
