By Bilesanmi Abayomi
A Nigerian expatriate, Uzoma Kpandu Ezeigbo, has stirred conversations on social media after openly criticizing the culture of excessive car ownership among Nigerian families, linking the trend to weak vehicle insurance regulations and inadequate taxation systems in the country.
In a post that has since gone viral, Ezeigbo remarked on the frequency with which some Nigerian families acquire and use multiple cars, often owning as many as five to seven vehicles. “They change cars like wrappers,” she wrote, observing that it is not unusual for each parent in a household to have a personal driver and multiple cars at their disposal.
Ezeigbo attributed this trend to Nigeria’s largely lenient automobile policies, noting that vehicle insurance is not strictly enforced, and annual taxation or roadworthiness checks, such as the UK’s MOT (Ministry of Transport) testing, are often neglected or non-existent. “You can only drive one car at a time,” she stated, questioning the logic behind owning fleets of cars for personal use.
Drawing a comparison with her experience in the United Kingdom, Ezeigbo highlighted the strict requirements for vehicle ownership in developed countries. “If these people come to live in the UK, where you pay up to £120–£150 in insurance every month for each car, they will receive sense,” she said, adding that even idle vehicles in the UK must be insured and taxed.
In Nigeria, she noted, third-party insurance — often paid annually at minimal cost — remains the norm. Known informally as ‘tachiri’, this type of insurance does little to discourage excessive ownership, as the financial burden is relatively low.
Ezeigbo urged Nigerians, particularly those in the diaspora, to critically reflect on what she described as “economic waste disguised as affluence.”
“Most of the economic wastes we engage in, in the name of affluence, we will stop them,” she concluded, signing off with her characteristic farewell: “Let me come and be going.”
The post has sparked debate online, with many Nigerians echoing her sentiments while others defended the practice as a personal choice tied to convenience and social status.