Nigeria’s proposed Central Gaming Bill is facing fierce resistance from state regulators, who argue that the legislation violates the country’s constitutional framework and contradicts a recent Supreme Court ruling affirming state authority over gaming and lottery regulation.
Supreme Court Ruling Reaffirms State Control
The Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN)—representing 24 states—has publicly condemned the bill, which recently passed its third reading in the National Assembly. The legislation seeks to establish a Central Gaming Commission with nationwide authority over all forms of online and remote gambling.
However, the FSGRN contends that this move directly contradicts a 2024 Supreme Court decision, which ruled that gaming and lottery regulation fall under the residual legislative list, placing them squarely within the jurisdiction of state governments.
“The Central Gaming Bill is, in every material respect, ill-advised and unconstitutional.”
— FSGRN Statement
The ruling also invalidated the National Lottery Act, reinforcing the principle that federal oversight of gambling is not permitted under Nigeria’s constitutional structure.
States Warn of Dangerous Precedent
While federal lawmakers argue that centralization would promote transparency, consistency, and accountability in Nigeria’s rapidly evolving gaming sector, the FSGRN warns that the bill sets a dangerous precedent—one that could erode broader state rights.
“Calls for a Central Gaming Act in 2025 are not only unconstitutional but also ignore both judicial precedent and best global practices.”
— FSGRN Statement
The group also criticized the bill’s attempt to distinguish between “gaming” and “lottery,” calling it a false dichotomy. According to the FSGRN, both fall under the umbrella of gambling and should be regulated uniformly at the state level.
Concerns Over Duplication and Overreach
Opponents argue that the proposed Central Gaming Commission would duplicate existing regulatory bodies, creating unnecessary bureaucracy and undermining local governance. They also emphasized that the Supreme Court had already addressed the issue of digital gaming, ruling that online formats do not alter the constitutional boundaries of regulatory authority.
What Happens Next?
The FSGRN has called on the National Assembly to withdraw the bill and respect the constitutional order. If the legislation passes both chambers, it will land on the desk of the President, who could exercise a veto to halt its enactment.
As the debate intensifies, the outcome could reshape Nigeria’s regulatory landscape—not just for gaming, but for the balance of power between federal and state governments.
