July 25, 2025
Growing Resistance to Central Gaming Bill in Nigeria
Nigeria’s initiative to centralize the regulation of its gaming industry has encountered significant resistance from state regulators. These authorities argue that the proposed Central Gaming Bill violates the nation’s constitution and contradicts a clear ruling made by the Supreme Court. In response, multiple state-level gaming regulators have united, demanding the immediate withdrawal of the disputed legislation.
Background: Supreme Court Decision Affirms State Authority
The Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN), representing 24 states, has openly condemned the bill, which recently passed its third reading in the National Assembly. The law aims to consolidate control over all online and remote gaming activities under a newly established federal body called the Central Gaming Commission.
The government argues that this shift would bring about more transparent licensing, standardize regulations across the country, and improve operator accountability. However, the FSGRN maintains that the bill is both misguided and unlawful, citing a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that affirmed gaming and lottery regulation are exclusive state responsibilities.
This court ruling invalidated the existing National Lottery Act and clarified that gambling is classified under the “residual” legislative list, which excludes it from federal jurisdiction. Consequently, authority over gaming remains squarely with individual states, much like the regulatory framework seen in countries such as the United States, where federal oversight of gambling is limited.
The Federation’s Stand on Protecting State Rights
Advocates for the bill emphasize that Nigeria’s gaming landscape has rapidly evolved, with online platforms becoming dominant. They claim that federal supervision will prevent regulatory fragmentation and ensure consistent oversight. Still, the FSGRN strongly opposes this view, highlighting that the Supreme Court has specifically addressed digital gaming formats, affirming that constitutional jurisdictional limits remain unchanged.
The group further criticizes the bill’s attempt to differentiate between “gaming” and “lottery,” viewing it as an artificial and unnecessary distinction. According to the FSGRN, both fall under the broader category of gambling and should be regulated under the same legal framework. They also expressed concerns that creating a Central Gaming Commission would lead to redundancies by overlapping with existing state regulatory bodies.
The FSGRN has called on the National Assembly to withdraw the bill and respect the constitutional division of powers. They warn that federal takeover of gambling regulation could establish a precedent for more extensive encroachment on state authority. With tensions rising, the bill’s ultimate fate might rest with the President, who retains the power to veto the legislation if it passes both legislative chambers.
