Uber’s decision to shut down its Nigerian operations after 12 years appears to have been driven by a combination of intensifying competition, rising operating costs and a broader restructuring of the global ride-hailing company.
The company, which launched in Lagos in 2014, announced that it would cease operations in Nigeria effective September 2, 2026, following what it described as a “thorough review” of its business.
Uber, however, did not provide a specific explanation for why Nigeria was selected for an exit, leaving industry observers to point to the increasingly difficult operating environment and changing dynamics in the country’s ride-hailing market.
“We are writing to share some difficult news. After a thorough review of our business, we have made the tough decision to wind down our operations in Nigeria, effective 2 September 2026,” the company said in a message to customers.
One of the factors that may have weakened Uber’s position was the rapid expansion of competition in the Nigerian ride-hailing market.
Uber initially enjoyed a strong position after entering Lagos, attracting a growing number of urban commuters and building a large network of driver-partners.
The arrival and expansion of Bolt, however, gave riders and drivers another major platform, intensifying competition for both customers and drivers.
A former Uber driver, Adeniyi Teslim, said the company gradually began losing ground as users migrated to competing platforms.
According to him, Uber increasingly developed an image of being targeted at higher-income users, while competitors offered alternatives that appealed to a broader section of the market.
The emergence of InDrive further expanded the choices available to riders and drivers, putting additional pressure on Uber’s market share.
State-backed platforms also entered the increasingly crowded market. In Lagos, LagRide emerged as another significant player, giving commuters an additional alternative to private ride-hailing platforms.
An industry source said Uber’s exit was therefore not entirely unexpected, arguing that the company had been gradually scaling down its presence.
“In recent times, the company has been winding down operations gradually, hence I don’t find it surprising,” the source said.
The company’s declining presence was also reflected in its leadership structure. Uber had reportedly operated without a country manager following the departure of its former country manager, Tope Akinwumi.
Beyond competition, the rising cost of operating in Nigeria may have made the market increasingly difficult to sustain profitably.
Transportation expert Prof. Ibe Callistus identified competition and the cost of doing business as possible factors behind the decision.
He pointed particularly to rising fuel prices, which have significantly increased transportation and operating costs for ride-hailing drivers.
According to him, higher operating expenses could have squeezed both revenue and profitability in the sector.
“The increase in fuel prices, which is a major operating cost, may have shrunk their revenue and profit,” Callistus said.
Uber’s Nigerian exit also comes against the backdrop of a major restructuring of its global operations.
The company recently announced plans to eliminate about 3,300 jobs, representing roughly 10 per cent of its workforce, as part of efforts to simplify its organisational structure.
Chief Executive Officer Dara Khosrowshahi said the restructuring was aimed at removing layers of management, simplifying team structures and concentrating resources on areas offering the greatest growth opportunities.
“Today, we’re making a number of significant organizational changes across Uber. We are removing layers, simplifying team structures, refining our global location strategy, and focusing our people and investments against the biggest opportunities ahead of us,” he said in a memo to employees.
Khosrowshahi said Uber’s revenue had nearly tripled over the past five years as the company expanded its products, businesses and global customer base.
But the expansion, he said, also created additional management layers, fragmented responsibilities and increasingly complex coordination structures.
