Nigeria's ride-hailing industry is facing another regulatory test after the Public Complaints Commission (PCC) opened an investigation into inDrive following complaints from a group of drivers.

The investigation adds another layer to a growing dispute between app-based transport workers and the platforms they depend on for access to passengers.

According to a case-conference invitation seen by TechNext, the PCC received a complaint involving 2,000 drivers led by Samson Aghedo under the Drivers Liberation Movement.

The complaints reportedly include allegations of unfair fare reductions, driver deactivation, commissions and hidden charges, changes to platform policies without adequate driver input, and what the petitioners describe as insufficient regulation of the sector.

The PCC's involvement is significant because the commission serves as Nigeria's ombudsman and can investigate complaints involving private organisations as well as government institutions.

The investigation does not establish that the allegations against inDrive are proven. Rather, it moves the dispute into a formal complaint and investigation process.

Why the complaint matters now

The timing is particularly notable for inDrive.

Nigeria's ride-hailing market has entered a new phase following Uber's exit from the country on September 2, 2026, after 12 years of operations.

That has left inDrive, Bolt and local operators competing for drivers and passengers in a market where the economics of operating a vehicle have become increasingly difficult.

inDrive has positioned Nigeria as an important market and has sought to attract drivers and fleet owners affected by Uber's departure.

But the latest complaint highlights a problem that has followed the industry for years: attracting more drivers does not necessarily resolve the disagreement over how much those drivers earn and what protections they receive.

The dispute goes beyond commissions

Commission rates remain one of the biggest points of tension.

But the complaints now reaching government institutions extend beyond the percentage deducted from each trip.

Drivers have raised concerns about how fares are determined, what deductions appear on their statements, how platform policies are changed and what happens when their accounts are suspended or deactivated.

These issues matter because an app-based driver's access to the platform is effectively access to a major source of work.

If an account is suspended, the driver can lose the ability to accept trips immediately.

That makes transparency around deactivation particularly important.

Drivers want to understand why accounts are restricted, what evidence is considered, how disputes can be challenged and how quickly legitimate accounts can be restored.

Platforms, meanwhile, need mechanisms to protect passengers and other drivers from fraud, misconduct and safety risks.

The tension between those two responsibilities is becoming one of the central regulatory questions facing ride-hailing companies.

AUATON has been pushing the issue for months

The latest PCC investigation comes against the backdrop of repeated complaints by the Amalgamated Union of App-Based Transporters of Nigeria (AUATON).

In May 2026, the union petitioned the Lagos State Government over what it described as worsening working conditions for drivers using Uber, Bolt and inDrive.

Among its complaints were platform commissions, welfare, safety, fare-setting practices and driver support. The union also called for greater transparency around trip calculations and stronger protections for drivers.

AUATON has also called for reforms to commissions and welfare arrangements, including health insurance, accident support and other forms of social protection.

Those demands have continued to evolve as operating costs rise.

In September, the union announced plans for an October action targeting Bolt and inDrive in Lagos, with a proposed 10% commission ceiling, fare reviews, greater transparency around deductions and stronger driver welfare measures.

That means the PCC investigation is arriving at a particularly sensitive moment for the sector.

inDrive has already faced disputes over deductions

The relationship between inDrive and Nigerian drivers has faced specific disputes over payments before.

In January 2026, AUATON raised concerns about deductions it described as double VAT charges on inDrive trips.

The union said some driver invoices showed combinations of service fees and VAT that could push total deductions significantly higher than the commission rate drivers expected.

In one reported case, the union said an invoice reflected a 4.99% service fee alongside additional VAT deductions. It argued that the structure created an excessive burden on drivers.

Those were allegations from the drivers' union, rather than findings that inDrive had unlawfully charged drivers.

But the dispute illustrates why transparency has become such a major issue.

A driver needs to know exactly how much the passenger paid, how much the platform deducted, what taxes or other charges were applied and how much ultimately reaches the driver's account.

Without that information, disagreements over commissions can quickly become disagreements over trust.

The safety question is just as complicated

Driver welfare also intersects with passenger safety.

Platforms have an obligation to respond when there are allegations of misconduct, fraud or unsafe behaviour.

inDrive has previously said it verifies driver documentation and uses safety mechanisms including ratings, emergency features and journey-sharing tools. The company has also said that it can remove drivers or passengers following investigations into reported incidents.

That creates a difficult balance.

Drivers want protection against arbitrary or unexplained account restrictions.

Passengers need platforms to be able to act quickly when credible safety concerns arise.

The regulatory challenge is therefore not simply deciding whether platforms should deactivate accounts.

It is establishing clear, transparent and reviewable processes for doing so.

Why the PCC investigation is different

Drivers have previously taken their complaints to political and regulatory institutions.

In 2025, the Lagos State House of Assembly summoned Uber, Bolt, inDrive and other ride-hailing companies following complaints raised by AUATON concerning commissions, deactivation, security and drivers' rights.

The latest PCC investigation adds another government institution to the growing list of bodies receiving complaints from app-based transport workers.

That matters because the dispute is gradually shifting from individual negotiations between drivers and platforms into a broader question of how Nigeria should regulate app-based work.

Ride-hailing companies sit in an unusual position.

They provide the technology connecting passengers and drivers, but the drivers generally operate their own vehicles and carry many of the costs associated with fuel, maintenance, insurance, financing and vehicle depreciation.

That makes traditional employer-employee rules difficult to apply directly to the entire relationship.

At the same time, the platforms have substantial control over the digital environment in which drivers find work.

That includes pricing mechanisms, access to passengers, commissions, account restrictions and platform rules.

The economics are becoming harder for drivers

The underlying economics are helping to intensify the dispute.

Drivers face fuel costs, vehicle maintenance, insurance, financing obligations, data costs and other operating expenses.

AUATON has argued that platform fares and commissions do not sufficiently reflect those costs.

The union's latest demands include a 10% commission ceiling and greater transparency over the calculations behind fares and driver earnings.

But there is another side to the economics.

Ride-hailing platforms also have to balance driver earnings with passenger demand.

Higher fares can improve driver economics but potentially reduce the number of trips customers are willing to take.

Lower commissions can improve drivers' take-home income but reduce the revenue available to the platform.

The result is a three-way tension between drivers, platforms and passengers.

Regulation now has to determine which parts of that relationship require minimum standards.

What the PCC will need to examine

The most important part of the latest investigation will be what the commission can establish from the complaints and the platform's response.

Key questions include:

• How are fares and commissions calculated?

• What deductions are applied to driver earnings?

• Are those deductions clearly disclosed?

• Under what circumstances can a driver be deactivated?

• Is there a formal appeal or review process?

• How quickly are legitimate accounts restored?

• How are safety complaints investigated?

• What welfare or insurance protections are available to drivers?

• How much input do drivers have when significant platform policies change?

Those questions go beyond inDrive.

They could eventually shape expectations for the wider Nigerian ride-hailing market.

Nigeria's ride-hailing industry is moving into a phase where platform accountability is becoming as important as platform growth.

For years, the conversation largely centred on expanding passenger numbers, recruiting drivers and making app-based transportation more accessible.

Now, the questions are becoming more structural.

Who sets the rules?

How transparent are those rules?

Who bears the cost when something goes wrong?

And what recourse does a driver have when access to the platform is removed?

The PCC's investigation into inDrive does not answer those questions yet, and the allegations made by drivers still need to be examined through the formal process.

But the growing number of complaints, government interventions and planned driver actions shows that the relationship between ride-hailing platforms and their drivers is no longer simply a private business dispute.

It is becoming a question of how digital labour platforms should operate in Nigeria.

And with Uber already gone from the Nigerian market, the pressure on the remaining major platforms to demonstrate that their business models can work for both passengers and drivers is becoming harder to ignore.