By Peace Udugba
A South African comedian, writer and political commentator has recounted how some Nigerian Uber drivers allegedly exploited an airport incentive programme operated by the ride-hailing company, prompting Uber to cancel the scheme across the countries where it was running.
According to the commentator, Uber introduced the incentive programme as part of its strategy to attract drivers and expand its operations into different markets.
Under the scheme, drivers who picked up passengers from airports and completed their trips were reportedly offered bonuses worth twice the normal fare.
The programme reportedly worked in several countries until some drivers in Nigeria allegedly discovered a way to exploit the system.
The commentator said some drivers registered for Uber Bookings and allegedly booked themselves for airport trips.
Instead of picking up passengers, the drivers would reportedly drive to the airport without a rider and still collect the bonuses attached to the trips.
“Uber went from country to country expanding its operations by offering incentives to drivers in every market they entered,” the commentator said.
“The deal was simple: if you picked up a passenger from the airport and completed the ride, Uber would give you a bonus worth twice the normal fare.
“It worked in most countries, but in Nigeria, drivers found a way to game the system. They signed up for Uber Bookings, then booked themselves, drove to the airport without picking up any passengers, and still collected the bonuses.
“Once Uber discovered what was happening, they had no choice but to cancel the incentive programme across all the countries where it was running.”
Olaoye: Nigeria’s market punishes platforms that assume trust
Reacting to the account, Akin Olaoye said he was not surprised by Uber’s decision, arguing that digital platforms can face serious challenges when users find ways to circumvent their systems.
Writing on X, Olaoye said, “This market punishes platforms that assume trust.”
He added: “The company built the marketplace, while the driver shows up and asks the rider to go offline, keeping the full fare. Zero work locating the passenger! 100 per cent of the money treated as entitlement.
“This is not government or economy or market forces; it’s culture! We are too comfortable circumventing the system that made the transaction possible.”
Olaoye also argued that competitors such as Bolt and inDrive could face similar challenges unless they address the incentives that encourage drivers and passengers to take transactions offline.
He further criticised Uber for what he described as inadequate incentives for riders to remain loyal to its platform.
“Bolt, inDrive and others will inherit the demand and the same leak,” he said.
“Uber also never gave riders a reason to stay honest, no real loyalty, no rewards. For example, after 10 trips, a free trip. Customers were not incentivised for refusing side deals.
“Localise or die! They obviously chose not to. Sad, but predictable!”
‘The deeper issue is incentives’
Another X user, Enigma, disagreed with the suggestion that culture alone was responsible, arguing that incentives also played a major role.
“The deeper issue is incentives, not just culture,” Enigma wrote.
“When going offline is more profitable than staying on-platform, people will bypass the system.
“Uber failed to close that loophole or make loyalty more rewarding. A marketplace survives when both sides have a reason to play by the rules.
“Culture and incentives go hand in hand. If you want people to do the right thing, reward them for it and make cheating less attractive. That’s how you build trust and loyalty.”
The discussion has renewed debate over how international technology companies adapt their business models to local markets and the need to design stronger systems that discourage fraud, platform abuse and offline transactions.
