FAAN Explains Airport Crackdown as FCCPC Probes Departure

• FAAN says Uber’s Nigeria exit was a broader corporate decision and not the result of its airport restrictions, which followed complaints about safety, touting and passenger accountability.

• The airport authority says disputes with e-hailing platforms centred on liability for drivers, while its ACHRAMS platform was designed to identify operators and improve passenger transparency.

• The FCCPC has begun examining Uber’s departure, including whether the company left unresolved obligations to Nigerian customers.

The Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria has rejected suggestions that its restrictions on e-hailing operators contributed to Uber’s decision to withdraw from Nigeria, saying the airport crackdown was driven by passenger safety, accountability and touting concerns.

Uber announced last Wednesday that it would wind down operations in Nigeria and Uganda effective September 2, 2026, following what it described as a review of its operations and changing business priorities.

The decision has triggered renewed scrutiny of the ride-hailing company’s relationship with Nigerian regulators, particularly after FAAN restricted e-hailing operators from commercial airport pick-ups.

Olubunmi Kuku, Managing Director of FAAN, said Uber’s departure should not be attributed to the airport authority.

“I can’t speak to their exit from Nigeria. I’m sure they have their own economic and regulatory considerations as to why they chose to exit,” Kuku told journalists.

Why FAAN restricted airport pick-ups

FAAN temporarily restricted e-hailing operators from conducting commercial pick-ups at its airports while licence agreements were being finalised.

Bolt subsequently resumed airport operations after meeting the authority’s requirements, while Uber remained restricted from operating to and from the airports.

Kuku said the intervention followed complaints from passengers, particularly during the December holiday period, involving both e-hailing and car-hire operators.

She said reported incidents included intimidation, passengers being dropped at unintended locations and cases where drivers allegedly presented themselves as e-hailing operators before joining car-hire operators and charging higher fares.

According to FAAN, the problem was therefore broader than the commercial relationship between the airport authority and individual platforms.

“We also had situations where some Uber and Bolt drivers would get out of their cars under the guise of coming into the airport as e-hailing drivers, and then join the car-hire operators to charge higher fares,” Kuku said.

The authority subsequently developed its Airport Car Hire Regulatory and Management System, ACHRAMS, to provide passengers with information on car-hire operators, drivers and indicative fares.

Kuku said FAAN did not collect fares through the system and that the drivers were not FAAN employees.

Liability became a sticking point

A major disagreement between FAAN and e-hailing companies concerned liability for drivers operating within the airport environment.

Kuku said FAAN had agreed to requests for dedicated airport pick-up zones but wanted platforms to accept greater responsibility for drivers using their services.

The difficulty, she said, was that the companies regarded the drivers as independent contractors rather than their employees.

“One of the issues we were struggling with the e-hailing companies over was largely around liability clauses,” she said.

FAAN also wanted platforms to take greater responsibility for passenger safety, while the companies pointed passengers to safety features available through their apps.

Kuku said this remained a major point of contention.

She added that FAAN had been aware that Uber was considering leaving Nigeria before the airport dispute, arguing that airport operations represented only a small part of the company’s wider Nigerian business.

Uber has separately said its withdrawal from Nigeria and Uganda formed part of a wider global restructuring that includes about 3,300 job cuts, representing roughly 10 per cent of its 34,000-strong workforce.

The company said it remained committed to Sub-Saharan Africa, which it described as a region with long-term growth opportunities.

FCCPC examines Uber’s exit

The regulatory scrutiny did not end with FAAN’s explanation.

The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission is examining Uber’s departure from Nigeria, with particular attention on whether the company left unresolved services or obligations to customers.

FCCPC Chief Executive Officer Tunji Bello disclosed the review in a message to Bloomberg, which reported that the consumer protection and competition regulator had begun examining the circumstances surrounding the company’s exit.

The development puts Uber’s withdrawal under a second regulatory lens.

While FAAN’s concern centres on airport operations, passenger safety and driver accountability, the FCCPC’s interest is focused on the company’s obligations to consumers following its decision to discontinue operations.

For FAAN, however, the airport dispute remains a regulatory matter rather than an explanation for Uber’s wider corporate decision.

The authority maintains that its objective was to establish clearer accountability for commercial passenger transport at airports, particularly where passengers may have difficulty determining who is responsible for the driver providing the service.