Follow Us on Google
By Chinenye Anuforo
[email protected]
Uber’s exit from Nigeria after more than a decade has triggered questions about what really pushed the global ride-hailing company out of one of Africa’s biggest consumer markets.
The company’s departure may have been announced as part of a review of its business priorities and investment focus, but industry observers say the real story could be found in the economics of operating in Nigeria.
From rising fuel and vehicle costs to shrinking consumer purchasing power, driver dissatisfaction, intense competition and regulatory pressures.
For Kofoworola Odozi, media strategist and programme lead, Journalism at Gatefield, Nigeria’s economic environment has placed pressure on the entire ride-hailing ecosystem.
Uber’s business, she explained, depends on three critical elements: drivers who can afford to operate, passengers who can afford its services and a regulatory environment that allows the platform to remain viable.
Nigeria’s economic changes have put pressure on all three. Since the removal of the petrol subsidy, fuel prices have risen sharply, while naira devaluation and inflation have increased the cost of vehicle maintenance, spare parts and other operating expenses.
For drivers, this has fundamentally changed the economics of every trip.
A journey that previously generated reasonable earnings can become far less profitable after fuel, maintenance, platform commissions and other expenses are deducted.
And when drivers struggle, passengers eventually feel the consequences. Fewer drivers can mean longer waiting times, while attempts to increase fares can push price-sensitive passengers away.
“A huge population does not automatically mean a profitable market. Population is potential. Purchasing power is what turns that potential into revenue”, Odozi said.
That distinction could be central to understanding Uber’s decision. Nigeria has a population of more than 200 million people, but inflation and currency pressures have weakened the purchasing power of consumers at the same time that the cost of providing transportation has increased.
This creates a difficult equation for ride-hailing companies, raising fares and risk losing passengers. Keep fares low and risk losing drivers. Platforms need enough margin to remain profitable.
Jide Awe, technology entrepreneur and Chief Executive Officer of Jidaw Systems Limited, said investors ultimately leave markets when the unit economics no longer add up.
According to him, Uber faced a combination of intense competition and severe economic pressures, particularly the rising cost of operating vehicles following fuel subsidy removal and currency devaluation. The result, he said, was a “no-win situation”.
Drivers needed higher fares to remain viable, but price-sensitive passengers could not necessarily absorb aggressive increases.
Awe said Uber, therefore, had to balance three competing demands of acceptable driver earnings, operational costs and sustained customer demand. That balancing act became increasingly difficult.
This is where the continued presence of Bolt and inDrive becomes important.
If Nigeria’s ride-hailing market has collapsed completely, why are the two platforms still operating and expanding?
The experts say the answer may lie in business models.
Media entrepreneur, Peter Oluka, said Bolt and inDrive are exposed to the same Nigerian economic pressures but may be better positioned to absorb them because their operating models give drivers and passengers more flexibility.
Bolt, he noted, allows older vehicle models that Uber has considered unacceptable in some markets, lowering the entry barrier for drivers.
inDrive, meanwhile, allows drivers and passengers to negotiate fares rather than relying entirely on fixed pricing. That flexibility can become particularly important in an inflationary environment.
A driver who believes a particular trip is not profitable can negotiate. A passenger can negotiate downwards. It does not eliminate the economic pressure, but it allows the two sides to respond to it differently.
“Bolt and inDrive could absorb the hit because their models tolerate the same cost pressures better, not because they’re immune to them,” Oluka said.
For Uber, the problem may have been that repeated attempts to adjust its economics were not solving the underlying problem.
Uber had already increased fares in Nigeria and reduced its commission from 25 per cent to 20 per cent, measures aimed at responding to the changing economics of the market.
But driver dissatisfaction persisted.
Drivers staged protests and strikes over what they described as unsustainable fares, highlighting the widening gap between their operating costs and earnings.
The pressure was particularly severe after the removal of the petrol subsidy and the subsequent naira devaluation. Fuel prices rose dramatically, while imported spare parts and vehicle maintenance became more expensive.
The result was a market in which drivers needed higher earnings just to maintain the same standard of living. But passengers were facing their own financial squeeze.
That left ride-hailing platforms caught between two difficult demands. Drivers wanted higher fares.
Passengers wanted affordable fares. Platforms needed enough margin to remain profitable.
Then came the tax question. Bolt’s ongoing dispute with the Federal Inland Revenue Service provides an indication of the regulatory environment confronting ride-hailing companies.
Bolt challenged the requirement that it collect and remit VAT on services supplied through its platform. After losing before the Tax Appeal Tribunal, the company continued the legal battle and pursued an appeal.
The dispute has effectively placed taxation of platform-based ride-hailing services under judicial scrutiny.
For companies already operating with thin margins, regulatory costs can become significant when added to fuel, vehicle, technology and other operational expenses.
But the experts caution against reducing Uber’s exit to taxation alone. Odozi said Nigeria’s economic environment should be seen as a combination of pressures rather than one decisive factor.
Awe similarly pointed to currency volatility, reinvestment requirements and relatively small margins. According to him, Uber may have reached a point where the Nigerian market no longer met the company’s risk-return expectations.
And that brings the story back to Uber’s global strategy. Uber’s Nigerian exit came alongside a broader restructuring by the company, including a global workforce reduction and efforts to simplify its management structure and sharpen its investment focus.
This suggests that the Nigerian decision may not have been simply a case of Nigeria chasing Uber away.
Instead, the company may have been reassessing its global portfolio and asking a fundamental question about each market:
How much more capital and management attention should we put into this business, and what return can we realistically expect?
Oluka believes that is an important distinction. The fact that Uber shut down rather than merely reduce its Nigerian operations suggests that the company may have concluded that the market was no longer worth the additional investment required to remain competitive.
“If the business is doing well, it’s most unlikely that it will leave the environment,” he said.
That does not necessarily mean Nigeria’s ride-hailing market is dead. Far from it.
Bolt and inDrive remain active. Nigerians continue to use ride-hailing services. Drivers continue to seek income through the platforms. The demand is still there. What appears to have changed is the economics of meeting that demand.
Uber’s experience illustrates a wider problem confronting businesses in Nigeria: a large population can create enormous market potential, but potential only becomes commercially attractive when consumers have sufficient purchasing power and companies can operate at sustainable margins.
Uber may, therefore, not have left because Nigerians stopped needing Uber. It may have left because after weighing the cost of staying, the potential return no longer justified the investment.
For Nigeria, that raises a much bigger question. If Bolt and inDrive can continue operating in the same market, what exactly did Uber see in its numbers that made it decide the fight was no longer worth it?
That is perhaps the real story behind Uber’s exit. Not simply that Nigeria was too difficult. Not simply that Uber was restructuring globally.
But somewhere between fuel prices, inflation, driver economics, business model, competition, regulation, taxation, currency risk and expected returns, the numbers were no longer profitable. So, it left.
