The Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) has defended its restrictions on e-hailing operations at Nigerian airports, saying the measures were introduced over passenger safety, accountability and touting concerns and were not responsible for Uber’s decision to withdraw from the Nigerian market.
Uber announced that it would wind down operations in Nigeria and Uganda effective September 2, 2026, following a review of its operations and changing business priorities. The decision has prompted questions over whether regulatory challenges, including FAAN’s restrictions on airport pick-ups, contributed to the company’s exit.
FAAN Managing Director, Olubunmi Kuku, however, said the authority could not be held responsible for Uber’s wider corporate decision, noting that the company would have had its own economic and regulatory considerations for leaving Nigeria.
FAAN had temporarily restricted e-hailing operators from conducting commercial pick-ups at its airports while licence agreements were being finalised. While Bolt subsequently resumed airport operations after meeting the authority’s requirements, Uber remained restricted from operating to and from the airports.
Kuku said the intervention followed complaints from passengers, particularly during the December holiday period, about experiences involving e-hailing and car-hire operators at airports. She cited complaints involving intimidation, passengers being dropped at unintended locations and instances in which drivers allegedly presented themselves as e-hailing operators before joining car-hire operators and charging passengers higher fares.
The concerns prompted FAAN to introduce tighter oversight of commercial passenger transport within the airport environment. The authority subsequently developed its Airport Car Hire Regulatory and Management System, known as ACHRAMS, to give passengers greater visibility of registered car-hire operators, drivers and indicative fares.
Kuku said ACHRAMS was not intended to make FAAN a transport operator or enable it to collect fares from passengers. Rather, she said, the system was designed to improve transparency by helping passengers identify the company and driver providing their service.
Another major issue between FAAN and the e-hailing companies was liability. Kuku said the authority had agreed to requests for dedicated airport pick-up zones but expected the platforms to accept greater responsibility for drivers operating within the airport environment.
According to her, the companies maintained that their drivers were independent contractors rather than employees, creating a disagreement over who should bear responsibility for passenger safety and driver conduct.
FAAN also wanted the operators to assume greater responsibility for safety concerns involving their drivers, while the companies pointed to safety features already available on their platforms.
Kuku said FAAN had been aware that Uber was considering an exit from Nigeria before the airport dispute, arguing that airport transportation represented only a small portion of the company’s broader Nigerian operations.
Uber, in announcing its withdrawal, said the decision followed a review of its business priorities in Nigeria and Uganda. The company also linked the move to a broader global restructuring involving about 3,300 job cuts, representing roughly 10 per cent of its 34,000-strong workforce, while maintaining that it remained committed to Sub-Saharan Africa.
The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission has separately begun examining Uber’s departure from Nigeria, with attention on whether the company left unresolved services or obligations to consumers.
The FCCPC review adds another layer to the regulatory scrutiny surrounding the exit, while FAAN maintains that its airport measures were focused on establishing clearer accountability for commercial passenger transport and improving safety and transparency within airport premises.
