The Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN), representing 24 state governments, has formally objected to the Central Gaming Bill 2025, arguing it directly violates a November 2024 Supreme Court judgment that established exclusive state authority over gaming regulation.
Supreme Court Precedent Cited
The opposition centers on the Supreme Court’s decision in Attorney General of Lagos State & Ors. vs. Attorney General of the Federation & Ors (Suit No. SC/1/2008), delivered on November 22, 2024. In that landmark ruling, the court “emphatically declared that lottery and gaming are not matters listed in either the Exclusive or Concurrent Legislative Lists of the 1999 Constitution,” according to the FSGRN statement.
The Supreme Court went further, nullifying the National Lottery Act entirely and issuing “perpetual injunctions restraining the Federal Government of Nigeria and its agencies from attempting to regulate or control the gaming industry within the States.”
The court’s ruling was comprehensive, declaring in six specific findings that:
- The National Assembly “lacks the vires to legally and Constitutionally make any law to regulate and control the operation of lottery in Nigeria”
- Gaming matters “do not fall within items which the National Assembly and state house of assembly are concurrently empowered to make laws”
- State governments have “the power, to the exclusion of” federal authorities “to make laws to regulate and control the operation of lottery within their States”
Federal Bill Provisions Under Challenge
The contested Central Gaming Bill 2025 proposes establishing a Central Gaming Commission with sweeping authority to “regulate the operation and business of all forms of Online and Remote gaming across the geographical boundaries of the Federating units and beyond the borders of Nigeria.“
Key provisions include:
- Licensing and permitting all online gaming operators, technology vendors, and service providers
- Registration and certification of all online and remote gaming activities
- Federal oversight of gaming operations nationwide, except those limited to individual state territories
Impact on Player Protection and Market Access
The regulatory dispute raises significant concerns for Nigeria’s estimated 60 million gaming participants and the industry’s ₦50 billion annual revenue, according to industry estimates. The legal uncertainty could affect:
Player Protection: Conflicting regulatory frameworks may create gaps in consumer safeguards, with unclear dispute resolution mechanisms and inconsistent responsible gaming standards across different jurisdictions.
Market Access: International gaming operators face regulatory uncertainty about which licenses are valid, potentially limiting player choice and market competition. As the FSGRN notes, the bill aims to regulate activities “beyond the borders of Nigeria,” creating potential conflicts with international gaming jurisdictions.
Revenue Generation: The dispute affects tax collection mechanisms, with both federal and state authorities claiming revenue rights. The Supreme Court ruling specifically limited federal authority to “only the Federal Capital Territory.”
Constitutional Federalism at Stake
Legal experts note the broader constitutional implications. The FSGRN warns that allowing federal override of state authority in gaming could set “a troubling precedent” where “there would be no stopping of future federal takeovers of other sectors that are Constitutionally under the legislative competence of States.”
The organization cited global precedents, noting that “across federal systems worldwide, from the United States of America (USA) to Germany, Canada, Switzerland, South-Africa and India; effective gaming regulation is anchored in state-led frameworks that respect constitutional autonomy.”
Industry Response and Next Steps
The Central Gaming Bill has completed its third reading in the National Assembly despite the constitutional challenges. Industry stakeholders await clarity on how the legal conflict will be resolved, particularly given the Supreme Court’s explicit finding that federal gaming legislation is “inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.“
The FSGRN has called on the National Assembly to “exercise constitutional responsibility and obligation to uphold Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, strengthen the rule of law and respect the Supreme Court Pronouncement.”
For Nigeria’s gaming industry participants, the outcome will determine not only regulatory compliance requirements but also fundamental questions about consumer protection, market access, and the constitutional balance between federal and state authority in Africa’s largest economy.
This article is based on official statements from the Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria and references the Supreme Court judgment in Attorney General of Lagos State & Ors. vs. Attorney General of the Federation & Ors (Suit No. SC/1/2008), delivered November 22, 2024.
