Uncle T

On Uber’s Exit from Nigeria… Uber’s withdrawal from Nigeria and Uganda should be understood principally within the context of the global restructuring announced today. The simultaneous market exits, the reduction of about 10% of its global workforce, and the reallocation of resources towards higher-priority opportunities indicate a broader portfolio decision rather than a verdict on Nigeria alone. The possibility of selling or franchising the Nigerian operation may have been considered, but the available assets were not necessarily compelling. Uber does not own the vehicles or exercise exclusive control over drivers and riders, many of whom use competing platforms. Customer histories, geolocation information and related data also cannot simply be transferred without addressing privacy, regulatory and reputational concerns. A local sale or licensing arrangement was therefore conceivable, but its strategic value may not have been sufficiently attractive. Any buyer would have needed to determine what was genuinely transferable and defensible beyond the Uber brand, technology and commercial relationships, whose value could weaken rapidly following its withdrawal. This decision should also be viewed alongside Uber’s recent withdrawals from Africa. Operations ended in Côte d’Ivoire on 25 September 2025 and in Tanzania on 30 January 2026. With the addition of Nigeria and Uganda, @Uber has now withdrawn completely from four African countries since September 2025. South Africa is a different case and should not be included. Uber is retiring the UberX category there but will reportedly continue to operate Uber Go, Comfort, Black and Reserve. Similarly, postponed European expansion plans are not market exits because Uber had not commenced the proposed operations. The continued presence of Bolt and inDrive reinforces the distinction, at least for now. It indicates that Nigeria’s e-hailing market remains viable, although perhaps not sufficiently attractive within Uber’s present strategy, cost structure and return requirements. A clean exit may therefore have offered greater certainty than a complicated divestment that would have yielded limited value while leaving Uber with ongoing exposure. We will learn more about the arithmetic and qualitative decisions in the weeks to come. ‘FA