State Regulators Slam Nigeria’s Central Gaming Bill as Constitutional Overreach

Nigeria’s move to centralize the regulation of its gaming sector is facing mounting opposition from state-level authorities, who contend that the proposed Central Gaming Bill infringes upon the nation’s constitutional framework and defies an explicit decision of the Supreme Court. Local regulators have joined forces, pressing for an immediate withdrawal of the contentious legislation.

A Recent Court Decision Examined a Similar Case

The Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN), representing 24 states, has made a public statement condemning the controversial bill, which recently had its third reading in the National Assembly. The proposed legislation aims to place all kinds of online and remote gaming under the jurisdiction of a single federal body, the Central Gaming Commission.

The government hopes that centralizing the nation’s gambling regulation will usher in more transparent licensing practices, ensure uniform rules, and hold operators accountable. However, the FSGRN contends that the bill is not just misdirected but illegal. The organization cited a 2024 Supreme Court decision that confirmed gaming and lottery regulation as matters reserved exclusively for state governments. 

The Central Gaming Bill is, in every material respect, ill-advised and unconstitutional.

FSGRN statement

The court’s judgment invalidated Nigeria’s National Lottery Act and explicitly ruled that gaming falls under the “residual” list, meaning it does not fall under the purview of the federal government. That means individual states hold the reins, similar to high-profile jurisdictions like the USA, where gambling faces minimal federal oversight.

FSGRN Remains Committed to Preserving State Rights

Proponents of the bill note that Nigeria’s gaming environment has evolved, with online platforms now dominating the market. They argue that federal oversight will ensure oversight and prevent regulatory fragmentation. However, the FSGRN disagreed, noting that the Supreme Court directly addressed the issue of iGaming, determining that digital formats do not alter the constitutional boundaries.

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 for trying to differentiate between “gaming” and “lottery,” which it described as an artificial distinction. According to the FSGRN, both terms fall under the general description of gambling and should be subject to the same legal framework. The proposed Central Gaming Commission also faced opposition, as critics noted the new body would duplicate existing regulatory structures.

The FSGRN has urged the National Assembly to retract the bill and abide by the constitutional order. It pointed out that taking control over the gambling sector could set a precedent, allowing the government to encroach on other state rights. As tensions escalate, the President could become the decisive factor. If the bill clears both chambers, he will have the opportunity to veto the legislation.