The Lagos State Government has formally rejected the proposed Central Gaming Bill, currently before the Senate after passing in the House of Representatives. Lagos argues the Bill is unconstitutional and contradicts a landmark Supreme Court judgment.
Chief Law Officer for Lagos, Lawal Pedro (SAN), has warned that passing the Bill would breach not only judicial rulings but also undermine Nigeria’s federal structure.
What Is the Central Gaming Bill?
- The Bill seeks to repeal the National Lottery Act (2005) and its amendments (2017).
- It intends to enact a unified law to regulate all forms of online and remote gaming, betting, lotteries, and games of chance across Nigeria.
- The Bill also proposes to provide for gaming regulation in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
Lagos State’s Legal & Constitutional Objections
Supreme Court Judgment
Lagos State leans on a Supreme Court ruling delivered on October 13, 2024, in Suit No. SC/1/2008 – Attorney-General of Lagos State & 22 Others vs Attorney-General of the Federation & 13 Others.
The Court held that lotteries, betting, gaming, and other games of chance are residual matters — meaning they belong to state governments under Nigeria’s Constitution, except in the FCT.
It also declared that the National Lottery Act is ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the National Assembly in regard to gaming and lotteries across states, and issued a perpetual injunction restraining the federal government and its agencies from enforcing or legislating them in states.
Lagos’ Position
- Lagos argues the Central Gaming Bill violates that judgment and the Constitution.
- It claims that legislating gaming at the federal level under the Bill is a violation of state legislative competence.
- The State AG calls the Bill a “voyage of unconstitutionality” and warns of constitutional crisis if it proceeds.
- Lagos has initiated contempt proceedings and legal challenges to oppose the Bill.
Stakeholder Reactions
State Regulators
- The Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN) has also opposed the Bill, stating it undermines the Supreme Court ruling and the constitutional order.
- Enugu State Gaming Commission publicly backed the opposition, noting that states have built regulatory systems and depend on revenues from gaming regulation.
Lagos State Government
- Through AG Lawal Pedro, Lagos has urged the Senate not to give concurrence to the Bill.
- Lagos also warns that the Bill could lead to legal conflict, state-federal tension, and undermine fiscal federalism.
Constitutional & Political Implications
Federalism & Powers of States
Nigeria’s Constitution divides powers between federal and state governments. “Residual matters” are those not explicitly assigned to the Federal Government; states have authority over them. Gaming and lotteries fall under residual matters per the Supreme Court judgment.
If the Central Gaming Bill becomes law, Lagos argues it would usurp state powers en masse. That could set a precedent for further federal takeover of matters traditionally left to states.
Supremacy of the Supreme Court
The 2024 judgment is final and binding. Under the Constitution, the decisions of the Supreme Court bind all persons and authorities, including the Federal Government.
Proceeding with legislation that contradicts such a judgment is seen as defying Nigeria’s legal order. Lagos claims that this Bill does just that.
Revenue & Regulatory Impacts
States derive internally generated revenue (IGR) partly from licensing, taxation, or regulation of gaming, betting, etc. Centralizing gaming regulation could shift revenue sources from states to the Federal Government.
Also, state regulatory agencies built over time may lose authority. That could disrupt oversight, licensing, taxation, and enforcement at local/state levels.
Counterarguments / Proponents’ Perspective
While Lagos and other states oppose the Bill, some proponents argue:
- Online and remote gaming transcend state borders, so regulation by states is not sufficient.
- That federal regulation ensures uniform standards, possibly better consumer protection, oversight of operators operating across states or internationally.
However, Lagos State rejects these arguments. It insists that “online” does not automatically mean “federal”, noting technology does not alter the constitutional character of gaming.
Risks & What’s at Stake
- If the National Assembly ignores the Supreme Court ruling, it may provoke lawsuits, legal chaos, and possibly injunctions.
- There is risk of a constitutional crisis: conflict between legislature and judiciary, and between federal vs state governments.
- Potential social tension in states that have bans or restrictions on gambling and gaming due to religious or cultural values. Central regulation might conflict with local laws or norms.
What’s Next
- The Senate needs to either decline concurrence of the Bill or amend it, possibly limiting federal roles to FCT only. Lagos is urging this course.
- Legal action is ongoing: Lagos has already initiated contempt proceedings. States may take further legal steps.
- State regulators and codes of law bodies (e.g. the NBA, senior advocates) are putting pressure for lawmakers to respect the Supreme Court decision.
Broader Context: Federalism in Nigeria
This dispute is another chapter in the ongoing struggle over how powers are divided in Nigeria’s federal system. Governors and state governments have long advocated for greater autonomy, revenue retention, and devolution of powers. The Central Gaming Bill is seen by many state actors as a backlash or attempt to centralize revenue and control.
Conclusion
Lagos State has firmly rejected the Central Gaming Bill, calling it unconstitutional, in defiance of the Supreme Court judgment, and a threat to state autonomy and federalism. While proponents argue for unified regulation especially with online and remote gaming, Lagos and allied states maintain that constitutional law, precedent, and judicial decisions reserve gaming regulation to states. The coming days and weeks will likely see legal battles, legislative pushback, and high-stakes constitutional questions. Ultimately, the outcome will test how Nigeria balances state powers, judicial supremacy, and centralized legislative ambitions.
