The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has commenced an investigation into Uber’s exit from Nigeria, with particular focus on whether the ride-hailing company left behind outstanding services or obligations to customers.
FCCPC Chief Executive Officer, Tunji Bello, disclosed this in a text message to Bloomberg, which reported on Sunday that the regulator was examining the circumstances surrounding Uber’s departure from the Nigerian market.
Bello said FCCPC officials were “looking into the manner of their exit, particularly in respect of unfulfilled services to the customers.”
The probe comes four days after Uber announced that it would wind down its operations in Nigeria and Uganda, effective September 2, 2026.
The decision marked the end of Uber’s operations in Nigeria, where the company launched its ride-hailing service in Lagos in 2014. Its departure reportedly came as a surprise to some riders and drivers.
In a notice to drivers, Uber did not provide a specific reason for its withdrawal from Nigeria, stating only that it had made the “tough decision” to wind down its operations.
“We have made the tough decision to wind down our operations in Nigeria, effective September 2, 2026.
“From this date, you will no longer be able to receive rider trip requests through the Uber app,” the company said.
Uber added that its Help Centre would remain available to assist drivers with questions relating to the shutdown until September 24, 2026.
The company’s exit comes amid intensifying competition in Nigeria’s ride-hailing sector, particularly from rivals such as Bolt and inDrive, as well as mounting economic pressures on consumers and operators.
The development also followed a recent disagreement between Uber and the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria (FAAN) over the regulation of e-hailing services at airports.
FAAN Managing Director, Olubunmi Kuku, dismissed suggestions that the authority influenced Uber’s decision to leave Nigeria, saying its interventions were focused on passenger safety, accountability and concerns over touting at airports.
According to Kuku, FAAN had been pushing e-hailing companies to accept greater responsibility for the conduct and safety of drivers operating on their platforms.
“One of the issues we were struggling with the e-hailing companies over was largely around liability clauses.
“But we also wanted them to take responsibility for the drivers. However, we were told that those drivers are not Uber’s drivers; rather, they are independent drivers.
“So, with regard to any safety concerns we raised, they wanted passengers to use the safety features available on their platforms. They did not want to take on that responsibility, and we had a major issue with that,” she said.
