The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Central Gaming Bill

  • Central Gaming Bill: A settled matter

    Central Gaming Bill: A settled matter

    • By Bashir Are

    Nigeria has crossed an important constitutional threshold. With President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR, formally declining assent to the Central Gaming Bill, the country has moved decisively from legislative uncertainty into a phase of constitutional clarity. What remains is not debate, but responsibility—to explain the constitutional basis of that decision, educate the public, and guide future legislation in an era where digital transformation is too often mistaken for a jurisdictional mandate.

    This issue is not merely about gaming. It is about preserving Nigeria’s federal balance in the digital age. President Tinubu’s decision reflects a continuity of constitutional vision traceable to 2004, when, as Governor of Lagos State, he established the Lagos State Lotteries Board. That framework pioneered a modern approach to gaming regulation—one that recognised gaming as a socially sensitive economic activity whose externalities must be mitigated. Levies from gaming operators were deliberately channelled into education, healthcare, youth development, sports, public enlightenment, and responsible gaming advocacy as an intervention trust fund. Regulation was designed not only for revenue extraction but primarily for social balance and community reinvestment.

    This philosophy reflects the core principles of cooperative federalism. Cooperative federalism is not a struggle for dominance between levels of government, nor is it a fragmentation of authority. It is a constitutional partnership—where powers are clearly allocated, respected, and exercised with restraint, while governments collaborate voluntarily to achieve national coherence. It rejects coercive centralisation and destructive fragmentation alike. Instead, it promotes collaboration without domination, harmonisation without subjugation, and unity in diversity.

    In the digital age, cooperative federalism offers a disciplined response to technological change. Technology may alter delivery channels, but it does not alter constitutional competence. Digital platforms should enhance regulatory cooperation, not serve as excuses for jurisdictional displacement.

    Gaming regulation is a classic case for cooperative federalism. While online platforms transcend geography, the social consequences of gaming—addiction, consumer harm, youth exposure, and community impact—remain profoundly local. States are best positioned to regulate these effects, while cooperating nationally on standards, data sharing, and enforcement. Nigeria’s Constitution anticipates this model. Lotteries, betting, and gaming appear on neither the Exclusive nor Concurrent Legislative Lists. By operation of Section 4(7) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), they are residual matters reserved exclusively for the states.

    This position was conclusively affirmed by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in November 2024. The Court held unequivocally that the National Assembly lacks legislative competence over gaming and lotteries. Judicial authority was clear: cooperation is permissible; constitutional overreach is not.

    Against this backdrop, the President’s pronouncement reflects a considered political judgment exercised in faithful obedience to the Constitution. It demonstrates statesmanship rooted in respect for constitutional limits. The refusal to assent was therefore not an act of policy preference, but a necessary affirmation of constitutional order and judicial finality. 

    The claims that online platforms confer federal jurisdiction are legally flawed. Jurisdiction flows from constitutional authority, not from technology. Consider a case initiated at the Kano State High Court, conducted entirely online. The virtual nature of the proceedings does not strip the court of its constitutional jurisdiction, nor does it transform it into a federal court matter. The court’s jurisdiction is determined by the Constitution, not by the platform used to conduct its business.  Globally, federations have embraced cooperative solutions. In the United States, Canada, Germany, India, Australia, Switzerland, and South Africa, gaming regulation remains subnational, coordinated through inter-state or interprovincial frameworks rather than federal takeover.

    How Cooperative Federalism Works in Practice

    To further inform public understanding and guide sound legislative reasoning, it is useful to describe—more concretely—how leading federations structure subnational cooperation in gaming regulation, particularly in Switzerland, the United States, Germany, and Canada.

    Switzerland: GESPA and the Intercantonal Agreement on Gambling (GSK)

    Switzerland is one of the clearest examples of cooperative federalism in action. The Swiss state is a federation of 26 cantons, and cantonal autonomy is a constitutional cornerstone. Because gambling has significant social implications—public order, youth protection, addiction prevention, and community welfare—Switzerland has long treated it as an area where local sensitivity matters.

    Read Also: Court sacks Abure, orders INEC to recognise Nenadi-led leadership of Labour Party

    The cantons cooperate through an inter-cantonal legal instrument commonly referenced as the Intercantonal Agreement on Gambling (GSK). Switzerland did not respond to crossborder gaming by transferring jurisdiction to the federal level. Instead, it created a cooperative mechanism preserving cantonal sovereignty.

    United States: MUSL and Interstate Compacts

    In the United States, gambling and lottery regulation is overwhelmingly state-based. States determine licensing, taxation, and enforcement. The Multi-State Lottery Association (MUSL) enables cooperation without stripping states of authority.

    Germany: Länder Cooperation

    Germany relies on state-to-state coordination through interstate treaties. Digitalisation drives harmonisation, not federal takeover.

    Canada: Provincial Authority

    Gaming regulation in Canada is largely provincial. The Interprovincial Lottery Corporation (ILC) enables collaboration while preserving provincial autonomy.

    Nigeria has already internalised this approach through the Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN). The FSGRN enables reciprocity licensing, harmonised standards, shared compliance intelligence, and coordinated responsible gaming initiatives—without displacing state authority.

    The proposed Remote Gaming Licence under the rejected Central Gaming Bill posed a structural risk. It would have allowed offshore operators to bypass state regulation, undermining jobs, weakening consumer protection, and diverting social mitigation revenues away from communities.

    Gaming operators already contribute through Corporate Income Tax, Education Tax, ITF levies, Police Trust Fund contributions, NITDA levies, Capital Gains Tax, and related obligations. State gaming levies are purpose-built social instruments. This legislative episode matters beyond gaming. It establishes how Nigeria will govern digital transformation across sectors—fintech, education, healthcare, transport, and the creative economy.

    Conclusion

    Ultimately, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s decision to decline assent to the Central Gaming Bill stands as a reaffirmation of cooperative federalism as Nigeria’s governing philosophy in an increasingly digital age. It reflects a deliberate choice to uphold constitutional boundaries, respect judicial authority, and preserve the carefully balanced allocation of powers that underpins Nigeria’s federal structure. While political in form, the decision was anchored in constitutional obedience and demonstrates statesmanship guided by fidelity to the rule of law.

    This moment carries significance far beyond the gaming sector. It clarifies an essential principle for Nigeria’s digital future: technology may reshape markets, delivery channels, and consumer behaviour, but it cannot and must not be allowed to rewrite constitutional competence. Online platforms do not dissolve federal boundaries, nor do they convert residual matters into federal subjects by virtue of scale or reach. Where digital activity produces local social consequences—as gaming undeniably does—regulation must remain closest to the communities affected, even as governments collaborate nationally to promote coherence, integrity, and shared standards.

    Bashir A. Are is the Chief Executive Officer of the Lagos State Lotteries and Gaming Authority and Chairman of the Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN). He is a Trustee of the International Association of Gaming Regulators (IAGR) and a Member of the Chartered Institute of Directors of Nigeria. He writes from professional experience in gaming regulation, cooperative federalism, business processreengineering, strategy, and technology-enabled governance.

    •Are is CEO-Lagos Lotteries & Gaming Authority

  • I won’t sign Central Gaming Bill, says President

    I won’t sign Central Gaming Bill, says President

    President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has assured state governments that he will not assent to the Central Gaming Bill just passed by the National Assembly.

    He insisted that lottery and gaming do not fall within the Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

    The President spoke in Abuja during the All Progressives Congress (APC) National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting on Friday.

    He stressed that, as a “constitutional democrat,” he understood the limits of his executive and legislative authority.

    “I know where my constitutional powers start and where they end,” Tinubu told party leaders, including governors and federal lawmakers.

    The National Assembly on December 2, passed the Central Gaming Bill, which seeks to grant the Federal Government powers to regulate lottery and gaming activities across the states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

    The move, however, has drawn sharp criticism, particularly from the Lagos State Government.

    Through its Attorney-General, and represented by legal luminary, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), Lagos wrote to the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), Prince Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), warning against presidential assent to the bill.

    Read Also: Rumpus over introduction of Lottery Bill in House of Reps after S’Court judgment

    The letter cautioned that signing the bill into law would amount to a disregard of a subsisting judgment of the Supreme Court, which last year nullified the National Lottery Act on the grounds that it fell outside the legislative powers of the National Assembly.

    In the December 12 letter, Olanipekun specifically urged the AGF to advise President Tinubu to withhold assent, arguing that the new bill was illegal and unconstitutional in light of the apex court’s decision that lottery is a residual matter reserved for state governments.

    Speaking at the APC NEC meeting, President Tinubu appeared to align with that position, despite the fact that the executive arm and the majority of lawmakers belong to the same political party.

    He said: “What I want you to forget is centralised lotto. Go and read the Constitution again. It is a residual matter.

    “Residual matters belong to the legislative authority of the states.”

    He warned proponents of the bill to desist from further action, making it clear that he would not sign the legislation it transmitted to him.

    “Don’t tread near it. There’s no need for us to argue. I am a constitutional democrat. Lottery, lotto law, centralised lotto, gaming, whatever it is, I have read it. I know it is coming, and I won’t sign it,” President Tinubu said.

    Olanipekun, in his letter to the AGF, reminded the Federal Government of its duty to uphold and defend the judgments of the Supreme Court, particularly in Suit No. SC.1/2008 between the Attorney-General of Lagos State and others versus the Attorney-General of the Federation and others.

    He recalled that the apex court, in a unanimous judgment delivered on November 22, 2024, nullified the National Lottery Act, holding that the National Assembly lacked the constitutional vires to legislate on lottery and gaming.

    The senior advocate expressed concern that, despite the judgment, the National Assembly went ahead on December 2,  to pass another legislation on the same subject, styled as the Central Gaming Bill.

    Olanipekun wrote: “We are further informed that the said legislation purports to repeal the National Lottery Act, as if it were an existing law that had not already been nullified by the Supreme Court.

    “For emphasis, and as rightly acknowledged by your good self at the commencement of the Supreme Court legal year, the National Lottery Act ceased to exist as law on November 22, 2024, when the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in SC.1/2008. The National Assembly cannot subsequently purport to repeal what is no longer in existence.”

    He added that the Central Gaming Bill also seeks to regulate online gaming and lottery, as well as gaming activities across state boundaries.

    It proposes that revenues generated be distributed by the federal government rather than paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, contrary to constitutional provisions on revenue allocation.

    Olanipekun noted that the Supreme Court had “flatly rejected” the argument of the AGF and the National Assembly that lottery and gaming qualify as economic activities carried out online or across state boundaries, which would justify federal regulation.