It is the kind of story designed to make Nigerians stop scrolling.
A single mother.
Five children.
A steering wheel.
Lagos traffic.
University tuition.
And a determined woman who supposedly used her earnings as an inDrive driver to educate her children and a cousin.
It is undeniably inspirational.
But it also raises an obvious question that deserves more than a sentimental answer:
How exactly did the numbers work?
The story of Felicity Eseke, presented through an interview with her daughter Louisa Eseke and published by Nigerian media, has been widely framed as an extraordinary example of sacrifice and resilience. According to the account, Felicity worked as an inDrive driver to support her children through school and is now being celebrated as a “Supermum.”
There is nothing inherently unbelievable about a hardworking Nigerian parent sacrificing everything to educate her children.
But the headline and the actual interview do not appear to tell exactly the same story.
And that distinction matters.
Because once the story is presented as “a mother used inDrive earnings to put five people through university,” readers naturally begin asking questions about the timeline, the mathematics and the source of the money.
Those questions are not cynicism.
They are journalism.
First, the Timeline
The first thing to establish is when inDrive actually arrived in Nigeria.
It was not a recent phenomenon.
inDrive launched its Lagos operations in August 2019. Contemporary reports from Techpoint Africa, BusinessDay, Punch and Vanguard all place the Nigerian launch in 2019, with Lagos as its first Nigerian market.
That immediately creates an interesting timeline.
The current story says Felicity has been driving for approximately five years.
That is important.
It does not say she has been an inDrive driver continuously since 2019.
In fact, her daughter's account says the family returned from Abuja to Lagos before the COVID-19 lockdown, spent about a year squatting with a friend, and during that period Felicity obtained a car through a hire-purchase arrangement, paying ₦20,000 weekly. She subsequently moved the family into rented accommodation and returned them to school.
So the five-year driving period is broadly consistent with a post-2020/2021 start.
The claim therefore is not necessarily:
“She drove for inDrive from 2019 until 2026 and paid university fees for five people.”
The published interview does not establish that.
And that distinction changes the question considerably.
But Then There Is the “Five of Us Through University” Problem
This is where the story becomes more confusing.
The headline circulated by TheCable says:
“My supermum worked as inDrive driver to see 5 of us through university.”
That wording strongly suggests five people were put through university using the mother's income.
But when you read the interview itself, the picture is different.
Louisa says:
“Now, to the glory of God, my older sister, my brother, and I are graduates.”
She then adds that one sibling is still at university, while a cousin is in secondary school.
That is not the same thing as saying five people have been taken through university.
It appears to describe:
- Louisa — graduate
- Older sister — graduate
- Brother — graduate
- Another sibling — currently at university
- Cousin — currently in secondary school
That is a family of five beneficiaries, but not necessarily five university graduates.
And that is perhaps the most important clarification missing from the viral framing.
The story may be completely genuine while the headline creates a much more dramatic impression than the underlying interview supports.
So, Is the Story Impossible?
No.
It isn't.
And this is where skepticism needs to remain disciplined.
A single mother could potentially educate several children over many years through a combination of income sources, sacrifices, loans, family support, staggered school payments and commercial driving.
Children also do not necessarily enter university at the same time.
If three children have already graduated, one is currently in university and another is in secondary school, the educational expenses could be spread over a decade or more.
The mother did not necessarily have to generate five university degrees' worth of tuition from inDrive alone.
And the interview never clearly says she did.
What it does say is that driving became a major source of income during a difficult period and that the money helped her provide housing and return her children to school.
That is a compelling story by itself.
There is no need to inflate it.
The Bigger Question: How Much Does an inDrive Driver Actually Make?
This is where the story becomes particularly interesting in today's Nigeria.
Because while the public is being presented with the inspirational image of a driver financing education, many Nigerian ride-hailing drivers are telling a very different economic story.
In February 2025, the Amalgamated Union of App-based Transporters of Nigeria complained that drivers using platforms including Uber and inDrive were being pushed toward fares they considered unsustainably low.
The union argued that drivers were absorbing the costs of fuel, vehicle maintenance and spare parts while passengers could negotiate fares down significantly.
And the situation has not become easier.
In April 2026, Nairametrics reported that Lagos ride-hailing drivers were experiencing declining real earnings following a sharp increase in fuel prices. One inDrive driver interviewed said spending ₦20,000 on fuel could produce only around ₦30,000 in earnings, compared with roughly ₦45,000 previously.
That does not mean Felicity's experience is impossible.
It means her story is exceptional.
And exceptional stories require context.
The Economics of the Gig
There is another point that gets lost whenever gig workers are turned into inspirational symbols.
A driver's gross revenue is not the same thing as income.
A driver may collect ₦40,000 in fares in a day.
That does not mean the driver made ₦40,000.
There is fuel.
There is maintenance.
There are tyres.
There are engine repairs.
There is insurance and licensing.
There is depreciation.
There may be vehicle financing or hire-purchase repayments.
There are platform charges and taxes.
And, in Lagos, there is the enormous economic cost of spending hours on congested roads.
In January 2026, Nigeria's app-based transport drivers' union complained about additional VAT deductions affecting inDrive drivers, saying total commission and tax deductions had risen from an earlier level of about 9.99 percent to roughly 12.5 percent per ride.
So when somebody says a driver “used inDrive earnings to train five people,” the economically useful follow-up is:
What were the driver's net earnings after operating expenses?
That is the information that would allow readers to appreciate just how extraordinary the sacrifice actually was.
And Who Wrote the Story?
This is another legitimate question.
The story was not an independent financial investigation into Felicity Eseke's household finances.
It was an interview.
The published Techeconomy version explicitly identifies the interviewer as Peter Oluka, while Louisa Eseke provides the account of her mother's life and sacrifices.
That matters because the article is fundamentally a human-interest profile, not an audited reconstruction of the family's finances.
The story is based on the daughter's testimony.
There is nothing wrong with that.
Human-interest journalism routinely relies on interviews.
But readers should understand what they are consuming.
It is one thing to say:
“A daughter says her mother sacrificed through commercial driving to support her children's education.”
It is another to present the story as an independently verified financial case study demonstrating that an inDrive driver's income was sufficient to fund five university educations.
The latter would require considerably more evidence.
The Hire-Purchase Detail Actually Makes the Story More Interesting
Ironically, one of the most revealing details in the interview is not the claim about university fees.
It is the car.
According to Louisa, her mother took a loan and acquired the vehicle through a hire-purchase arrangement, paying ₦20,000 every week. After completing the payments, she moved the family out of the place where they had been squatting and rented a home.
That suggests the car was not simply a luxury asset.
It was an income-generating instrument.
The mother effectively converted a financed vehicle into her workplace.
That is a familiar story in Nigeria's informal and gig economy.
People borrow money to buy motorcycles.
They finance cars to enter ride-hailing.
They purchase equipment to start businesses.
They turn personal assets into productive assets because conventional employment does not provide sufficient opportunities.
The fascinating part of Felicity's story is therefore not that inDrive magically produced enough money to pay everyone's bills.
It is that she appears to have used a financed productive asset to create an income stream at a time when the family had very few options.
That is a much more economically meaningful story.
The Other Side of the inDrive Story
There is also an uncomfortable irony here.
The same platform being celebrated as the vehicle through which one woman supported her family is also being criticised by drivers over the economics of ride-hailing.
In other words, both stories can be true.
A platform can provide someone with a desperately needed source of income while simultaneously operating in an economic environment where many drivers struggle to make adequate returns.
That is not a contradiction.
It is the reality of the gig economy.
For some workers, gig platforms provide flexibility and an escape from unemployment.
For others, they can become an exhausting race against fuel prices, maintenance costs and declining fares.
The success of one driver should therefore not be used to dismiss the struggles of thousands of others.
And the struggles of other drivers should not automatically be used to declare Felicity's story false.
Both deserve to be examined.
What the Story Should Have Told Us
If the objective was genuinely to document an extraordinary financial achievement, there are questions the interview could have answered.
How much did Felicity earn on an average day?
How many days per week did she drive?
How much did fuel cost during the years she was driving?
How much did she spend on maintenance?
How much was the weekly vehicle repayment?
How much did she pay in rent?
Which children's education costs were paid from driving?
Did the children receive scholarships?
Did other relatives contribute?
Did the children work?
Were school fees paid gradually over different years?
And most importantly:
How many of the five beneficiaries actually attended university, and how many were still in school when the interview was conducted?
Those answers would not destroy the inspirational story.
They would strengthen it.
Because numbers would demonstrate exactly how extraordinary the mother's achievement was.
Don't Turn Inspiration Into Advertising Without Context
There is another reason this deserves scrutiny.
The story comes at a time when gig-economy companies have an obvious interest in showing that their platforms create economic opportunity.
An inspirational story about a mother who used inDrive to transform her family's life is powerful marketing.
It humanises the platform.
It associates the brand with sacrifice, motherhood, education and upward mobility.
Again, that does not make the story false.
But it means readers should distinguish between a genuine human story and the commercial narrative built around it.
The mother may genuinely have worked extremely hard.
Her children may genuinely have benefited.
And inDrive may genuinely have provided an important economic opportunity.
But none of those facts eliminates the need for basic questions about the numbers.
The Real Superpower May Not Be inDrive
Perhaps the most important conclusion is this:
The hero of the story is not an app.
It is the woman behind the wheel.
Because even if we strip away the branding, what remains is a familiar Nigerian story.
A mother returned to Lagos because she believed she could find a way to survive there.
She had no clear plan.
She and her children reportedly spent a year squatting with a friend.
She borrowed money.
She acquired a car.
She paid ₦20,000 every week until the vehicle became hers.
She went onto Lagos roads.
She worked.
She raised her children.
And eventually, according to her daughter, her children became sufficiently established that she could stop driving out of necessity and drive simply because she enjoys it.
That is already remarkable.
It does not need a mathematically ambiguous headline.
So, Does the Story “Add Up”?
Potentially—but not in the way the headline initially suggests.
The available interview does not establish that Felicity began driving for inDrive in 2019.
It says she has driven for about five years.
inDrive itself entered Lagos in 2019, meaning there is no basis for assuming seven years of inDrive income.
More importantly, the interview does not establish that five people have already completed university entirely through her inDrive earnings.
It says three of her children are graduates, one remains at university and a cousin is in secondary school.
That is a significant difference.
The story therefore should not be dismissed as fabricated simply because the headline raises eyebrows.
But neither should readers be expected to accept a sweeping financial claim without asking how the numbers work.
The appropriate response is neither gullibility nor cynicism.
It is verification.
The Lesson
Felicity Eseke's story may ultimately be a powerful example of what determination can achieve in Nigeria's difficult economy.
But there is an equally important story hiding underneath it.
It is the story of a gig economy where one person can describe a platform as her lifeline while thousands of others complain that the economics of driving are becoming increasingly difficult.
It is the story of women entering professions once considered unsuitable for them.
It is the story of Nigerians turning cars bought through loans into businesses.
And it is the story of how easily a complicated economic reality can be reduced to a beautiful headline.
So yes, celebrate the mother.
Celebrate the sacrifice.
Celebrate the children.
But ask the uncomfortable questions too.
How much did she earn? How much did she spend? How long did she drive? Who else contributed? And what exactly does “five of us through university” mean?
Those questions do not diminish Felicity Eseke.
If anything, they give her story the respect it deserves.
Because if a Nigerian mother really managed to finance years of education while battling fuel costs, vehicle repayments, Lagos traffic, rent and the economics of ride-hailing, then we should know the full story.
Not because we doubt her—but because extraordinary stories deserve extraordinary clarity.
Comments
Post a Comment