Uber’s autonomous vehicle ambitions are accelerating. The ride-hailing giant is expanding its partnership with Chinese self-driving technology firm WeRide, with plans to roll out robotaxi services in 15 additional cities outside China and the U.S. over the next five years.

This development follows their initial commercial robotaxi launch in Abu Dhabi five months ago, a venture that also involved local transport operator Tawasul.

As part of the expansion, Uber will inject $100 million into WeRide. The cash is expected to be transferred by the second half of 2025, according to a regulatory filing published Wednesday. The additional cities will include locations in Europe, with Uber integrating WeRide’s services into its app as it does in Abu Dhabi.

The deal is modeled after Uber’s U.S. partnership with Waymo. Under this arrangement, Uber handles routing and customer access via its platform, while the autonomous vehicle partner, Waymo in the U.S. and WeRide in this case, provides the AV technology. In Abu Dhabi, Uber and WeRide jointly manage the service through local fleet operator Tawasul and are also planning to expand into Dubai.

WeRide, which went public on the Nasdaq in October 2024, says the new funding will deepen its global rollout and support further development of its AV tech.

“The additional cities will focus on markets where Uber already operates and where AV regulations are favorable,” the company said in a statement.

This move is the latest in a string of autonomous partnerships Uber has pursued globally. In the past two months, Uber has announced separate deals with U.S.-based May Mobility and China’s Momenta. Over the past two years, Uber has locked in more than 15 collaborations with autonomous tech firms across ride-hailing, delivery, and freight logistics.

Uber’s most high-profile U.S. partnership remains with Waymo. The two currently offer robotaxi rides in Austin and are preparing to launch in Atlanta.

Internal Shifts Amid External Expansion

This expansion comes at a moment of internal recalibration at Uber. CEO Dara Khosrowshahi is pressing ahead with a series of workplace changes that some employees are resisting—and he’s openly fine with that.

In an interview with CNBC on Wednesday, Khosrowshahi made clear that while the company values its workforce, those unwilling to align with its direction are free to move on.

“The good news is the economy is still really strong. The job market is strong,” he said. “People who work at Uber, they have lots of opportunities everywhere.”

The CEO emphasized that Uber isn’t trying to drive people out, but that change is inevitable.

“We want them, obviously, to take the opportunity with us, to take the opportunity to learn,” he said.

The company’s latest policies require corporate staff to be in the office at least three days a week, specifically Tuesday through Thursday. Mondays and Fridays may be worked remotely. Remote workers have also been asked to return to physical offices. Additionally, the tenure requirement for a paid sabbatical has been extended, though Uber has not disclosed how many years.

“We want more people in the office,” Khosrowshahi said, framing the shift as an effort to support collaboration and mentorship. “It’s the right mix of giving your employees flexibility but also getting them to the office for those all-important teamwork tasks.”

An Uber spokesperson clarified that the policy changes are not tied to any planned layoffs and are not meant to spur attrition. Starting in June, the new hybrid work structure will go into effect.

Uber’s stance mirrors a broader trend in Big Tech where executives are reasserting workplace norms and cutting back on perks introduced during the pandemic. Amazon recently adjusted its compensation structure to reward top performers while cutting back on what underperformers earn. Meta’s Chief Technology Officer Andrew Bosworth told employees they could either “disagree and commit” or leave after the company rolled back diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and began trimming low-performing staff.

At Microsoft and other tech giants, job cuts have increasingly been tied to individual performance reviews.

Uber’s robotaxi push and internal restructuring highlight a balancing act: while the company invests heavily in next-generation transportation, it’s also reshaping its workforce expectations. Khosrowshahi is betting that employees who remain will be aligned with Uber’s long-term goals, both technologically and culturally.

A Federal High Court in Abuja has thrown out the suit filed by MultiChoice Nigeria Limited in a bid to shield its controversial DStv and GOtv price hikes from regulatory scrutiny, ruling that the case amounted to an abuse of court process.

Justice James Omotosho delivered the judgment on Thursday, weeks after hearing arguments from the pay-TV provider and the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC). He found that MultiChoice had filed its case despite being aware of a similar ongoing suit brought by consumer rights lawyer Festus Onifade. That case, also before the Federal High Court but in a different division, deals with the same issues of pricing and alleged abuse of dominance.

“The plaintiff in this instant suit could have ventilated his grievance before the previous pending suit,” Omotosho ruled. “This is an abuse of court process.”

FCCPC Overreached Its Powers – But Still Wins

Although the judge sided with MultiChoice on some legal points, particularly that the FCCPC had overstepped its bounds by attempting to halt price increases without a completed investigation, he still dismissed the suit on the grounds of duplicity.

Omotosho acknowledged that while the FCCPC, as a federal agency, has the authority to investigate anti-competitive practices, it lacks the statutory power to stop a company like MultiChoice from setting prices in Nigeria’s deregulated economy.

“FCCPC is not vested with the power to suspend the price hike of an entity before conducting an investigation,” he ruled. “Nigeria operates a free market economy, and only the President can approve price regulation through a legally backed instrument or price control board.”

Despite the sharp rebuke of the FCCPC’s early interference, the case ultimately failed because it was improperly filed.

Background to the Case

In February 2025, MultiChoice announced another round of price hikes for its DStv and GOtv packages, citing inflation and operational costs. The new rates, which took effect March 1, included a 25% increase for DStv Compact (from N15,700 to N19,000) and a 20% increase for DStv Premium (from N37,000 to N44,500). The GOtv Supa Plus package also saw a rise from N15,700 to N16,800.

The announcement provoked a wave of public backlash, with many Nigerians pointing to the limited competition in the pay-TV market. In response, the FCCPC summoned MultiChoice for an investigative hearing and warned that failure to justify the hikes could lead to sanctions.

MultiChoice pushed back, filing a suit in March to stop the FCCPC from taking any steps against it based on a letter dated March 3, 2025. The company argued that the Commission had no legal authority to demand price controls or regulatory approval for service adjustments.

Lead counsel for MultiChoice, Moyosore Onigbanjo (SAN), told the court that price regulation falls outside the FCCPC’s statutory mandate. He insisted that Nigeria’s free market principles allow companies to set prices based on commercial considerations without needing regulatory clearance.

FCCPC Defends Mandate to Curb Market Abuse

The FCCPC’s legal team, led by Prof. Joe Agbugu (SAN), maintained that the Commission was not attempting to fix prices but to investigate MultiChoice’s dominant position and whether its actions violated market fairness.

Agbugu pointed to consumer complaints and argued that unchecked price increases without market competition could constitute abuse of dominance, which the FCCPC is empowered to address under its establishing law.

However, the court was unconvinced by this line of reasoning, at least regarding the timing of FCCPC’s intervention. Justice Omotosho ruled that an investigation must precede any directive or sanction, and the Commission had acted prematurely.

Even so, he concluded that the broader question of market dominance should have been addressed in the already pending suit filed by Onifade, making the MultiChoice action redundant.

Why is MultiChoice Targeted?

Economists have questioned the motive behind the FCCPC’s exclusive focus on MultiChoice, despite similar pricing moves by other content platforms and pay-TV providers operating in Nigeria. Many have attributed this development to MultiChoice’s multinational status.

However, the judge recalled a 2022 ruling by the Competition and Consumer Protection Tribunal that recognized MultiChoice’s right to raise subscription prices, noting that consumers could choose from alternative services.

He warned that any attempt to fix prices in a free market economy could deter investment and damage the country’s economic image.

“Prices cannot be regulated in a free market economy. Attempt to fix prices will only scare investors away,” he said.

The judge’s decision means MultiChoice’s suit is dismissed, and the FCCPC is free to proceed with its own legal action already filed in Lagos over the company’s failure to cooperate with regulatory investigations.

However, the ruling also draws clear boundaries for the FCCPC, clarifying that it cannot interfere with pricing unless a formal investigation finds evidence of market abuse. The Commission is limited to issuing guidelines or making recommendations to the President on price-related interventions.

This judgment reaffirms the challenge regulators face in reining in powerful market players in a liberalized economy. It also highlights the legal tightrope between consumer protection and upholding Nigeria’s constitutional commitment to a free market.

With the Abuja suit dismissed, the stage is now set for a potential legal showdown in Lagos, where the FCCPC’s case accusing MultiChoice of obstructing an investigation is still pending. MultiChoice, on its part, maintains that it is being unfairly targeted and that it operates within its rights under Nigeria’s economic framework.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has officially removed Nigeria from its list of debtor countries, following the final repayment of the $3.4 billion Rapid Financing Instrument (RFI) loan the country obtained in 2020 during the COVID-19 crisis.

The development, confirmed by the IMF in its May 6, 2025 update titled “Total IMF Credit Outstanding – Movement from May 01, 2025 to May 06, 2025,” shows Nigeria is no longer among the 91 developing and least-developed nations with outstanding obligations totaling $117.8 billion.

Presidential aides and government supporters have quickly seized the opportunity to trumpet the development as a hallmark of fiscal discipline under President Bola Tinubu. But financial analysts and economists familiar with the structure of the IMF’s emergency lending framework say this is not an achievement that warrants celebration. They note that the repayment was an obligation with a clear deadline and not a result of exceptional performance by the current administration.

“Both sides, move on, nothing to see here. A loan that was to be repaid by a set date has been repaid. Nigeria has gone back to not having any IMF loan,” economist Kalu Aja said, brushing aside the fanfare.

The Loan Nigeria Had to Take — and Had to Repay

The $3.4 billion Nigeria borrowed under the IMF’s Rapid Financing Instrument was not a traditional loan. It was a special emergency package made available to IMF member countries facing balance of payment challenges triggered by the pandemic. At the time of application in April 2020, Nigeria’s economy was reeling from an oil price collapse that drastically cut government revenue, prompting then-President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration to seek immediate support.

Crucially, Nigeria had no outstanding loan with the IMF before this disbursement. The last formal IMF loan Nigeria took dates back to 2000. The RFI disbursement was unprecedented, not only in size but also in its leniency—a 1% interest rate, a five-year tenor, and no structural adjustment conditions. Repayments were allowed to begin after three years and had to be completed by 2025. That repayment timeline was automatic and binding.

An analyst said it is not a traditional IMF programme, as it came with no conditionalities, no quarterly reviews, no policy benchmarks—just an emergency injection of funds. This implies that you can’t call repaying it an economic masterstroke. It was simply due.

A Convenient Victory Lap?

Despite the nature of the loan, the Tinubu administration has turned the repayment into a public relations moment. Presidential aide O’tega Ogra, in a post on X, portrayed the development as the fruit of fiscal responsibility, reform, and strategic reset under Tinubu.

“We are better placed to strengthen our fiscal credibility,” Ogra wrote. “Nigeria is rising with clarity, capacity, and credibility.”

The presidency insists this is more than just closing a loan book—it’s a reflection of a shift in mindset. According to Ogra, future engagements with the IMF or other global lenders will be “proactive, not reactive,” and built on “partnership, not dependence.”

But this perspective clashes with how the IMF system works. The fund’s rapid credit facilities are designed precisely for temporary shocks. They are short-term tools that countries repay as they regain footing. Nigeria’s repayment, critics argue, is not proof of robust fiscal management but a sign the clock simply ran out.

A Reminder: Nigeria Rarely Borrows From the IMF

Nigeria’s use of IMF credit is historically minimal. The RFI loan was the first IMF borrowing since 2000, and its disbursement during the pandemic was more of the exception than the norm. In fact, the $3.4 billion Nigeria accessed in 2020 represented the full 100% of its IMF quota—a bold move necessitated by the fiscal shock of plummeting oil prices.

Data tracked by StatiSense shows Nigeria’s debt to the IMF dropped steadily from $1.61 billion as of July 2023 to $1.37 billion in January 2024, $933 million in July 2024, and $472 million by January 2025, culminating in full repayment in early May. The IMF account was settled without fanfare from the Fund, which often treats RFI repayments as procedural milestones, not markers of policy excellence.

Moreover, the repayment bears no similarity to Nigeria’s expensive Eurobond debts or China EXIM loans, both of which come with high interest rates and longer tenors. The RFI was closer to a financial breathing space than an investment in development.

IMF Still Has Praise—Cautiously

Despite the divergence in how the government and economists perceive the loan clearance, the IMF has in recent months commended Nigeria’s reform path. In its 2025 Article IV Consultation Mission, the IMF team led by Axel Schimmelpfennig acknowledged “important steps” by the Nigerian government to stabilize the economy and support growth. These included the cessation of deficit financing by the Central Bank, removal of fuel subsidies, and reforms in the foreign exchange market.

However, the Fund also highlighted enduring vulnerabilities: “The macroeconomic outlook is marked by significant uncertainty,” the IMF said. “Macroeconomic policies need to further strengthen buffers and resilience, reduce inflation, and support private sector-led growth.”

That cautious optimism stands in contrast to the unrestrained jubilation among presidential aides.

However, Nigeria’s exit from the IMF debtor list does not close the door to future engagement. The country remains a full member of the IMF and retains the option of seeking credit again if economic conditions worsen.