The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Supreme Court lifts five-year ban on Imo ex-Attorney- General Akaolisa

    Supreme Court lifts five-year ban on Imo ex-Attorney- General Akaolisa

    The Supreme Court has lifted the five-year ban handed to a former Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice in Imo State, Chief C.O.C  Akaolisa, by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC).

    A six-member panel of the LPDC had, in its direction handed down on July 9, 2021, found Akaolisa liable for infamous conduct and suspended him from legal practice for five years.

    In a petition, Akaolisa was accused of using his position as the Imo State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice to facilitate the bail of a murder suspect, who had been remanded in prison custody and standing trial since 2013, before Justice Onii Egbunighe of the High Court of Imo State, sitting in Orlu.

    Read Also: Lagosians commend police on security, demand better welfare for operatives

    The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment of a five-member panel, faulted the decision of the LPDC and proceeded to set it aside.

    Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, who read the lead judgment, said:

    “Having considered the arguments by counsel, the court found the appeal of the appellant meritorious, and it is hereby allowed.

    “The direction of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) delivered on the 9th of July 2021, finding the appellant liable for infamous conduct and suspending him from legal practice for a period of five years, is hereby set aside.”

    The court proceeded to restore him to the practice of law in the country.

  • Supreme Court lifts five-year ban on Imo’s ex-Attorney General Akaolisa 

    Supreme Court lifts five-year ban on Imo’s ex-Attorney General Akaolisa 

    The Supreme Court has lifted the five-year ban handed to a former Attorney General and Commissioner of Justice in Imo State, Chief C.O.C Akaolisa by the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC).

    A six-member panel of the LPDC had, in its direction handed down on July 9, 2021 found Akaolisa liable for infamous conduct and suspended him from legal practice for a period of five years.

    In a petition, Akaolisa was accused of using his position as the Imo State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice to facilitate the bail of a murder suspect, who was remanded in prison custody and standing trial since 2013, before Justice Onii Egbunighe of the High Court of Imo State, sitting in Orlu.

    The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment of a five-member panel, faulted the decision of the LPDC and proceeded to set it aside.

    Justice Mohammed Baba Idris, who read the lead judgment, said: 

    Read Also: BREAKING: Supreme Court sets aside judgment recognising Abure as LP’s National Chairman

    “Having considered the arguments by counsel, the court found the appeal of the appellant meritorious and it is hereby allowed.

    “The direction of the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC) delivered on the 9th of July 2021, finding the appellant liable for infamous conduct and suspending him from legal practice for a period of five years, is hereby set aside.”

    The court proceeded to restore him to the practice of law in the country.

    Reacting, who witnessed the proceedings, said: “I want to thank the Supreme Court for doing justice to me.”

  • LGS, governors and Supreme Court

    LGS, governors and Supreme Court

    Months after the Supreme Court gave judgment against states maintaining leverage over local government finances through the state joint accounts with LGs, the conundrum of LG autonomy is yet to be resolved. The Supreme Court judgment all but gave autonomy to the LGs by completely delinking them from any financial controls erected by governors. But both the judgment and the bid for financial autonomy have appeared to falter.

    Firstly, the states outrightly resisted the push for autonomy, until Justice minister Lateef Fagbemi threatened them for deliberately and provocatively undermining the Supreme Court judgment. No governor seemed eager to be hauled a second time before the Supreme Court for contempt of court. Secondly, after sensible avoiding open defiance, the governors sought for more time to resolve some technical issues plaguing the account opening at the CBN. Whether those technical details have been fully and satisfactorily resolved or even partially resolved, no governor has volunteered to any explanation.

    But last week, the governors leapfrogged over all the loose talk and considerations regarding those technical details that needed explication and instead jumped into another stratagem to halt the delinking of the LG accounts. The states now want the federal government to enable the LGs to operate their commercial bank accounts instead of compelling them to open new and ‘unconstitutional’ accounts with CBN. They cite legal and constitutional provisions to back their claims. They are partly right to caution against forcing the LGs into opening accounts with the CBN, but it is nevertheless clear that the governors are clutching at any straw to stifle the LG financial autonomy judgment which the court granted.

    Thirdly, other than a few states prepared to sustain their defiance of the Supreme Court judgment and to demonstrate their opposition to LG autonomy, most states have been clever at showing their hands. They remain unconvinced that the LGs can run themselves well or avoid bankruptcy if given autonomy. They fear that once LGs enjoy financial autonomy, it is just one or two steps away from open defiance of the governors. In fact, a few states, such as Anambra, have begun to make laws for administration of LGs as provided for in the constitution, but which cleverly subvert the Supreme Court judgment. The talk about letting the LGs maintain their commercial bank accounts is merely a red herring.

    Read Also: First Lady urges empathy, unity at Eid-el-Fitr

    At bottom, all the controversies about LG financial autonomy are a reflection of the contradictions contained in a few provisions of the 1999 constitution. The controversies will continue and the struggle for influence and control will not abate until the country is restructured to enable financial federalism on a scale that matches or even supersedes the federal arrangement between the federal government and the states. If the country does not get it right regarding the federating tiers, the acrimony will persist.

    The safe bet is that governors will find extenuations to subjugate the LGs. One way they do this is to ensure that the subversion begins at the level of electing LG officials. Thereafter, with all or nearly all the seats safe in the hands of their political party, they will dare any of the elected LG officials to cross or defy party lines or discipline. Usually, the LG officials are too glad to be elected than care about judicial or even constitutional niceties.

    If the effort of the federal government to ensure that development permeates the local government is not to go up in smoke, they will have to go the route of general political restructuring. Piecemeal selection of core constitutional issues and challenges will only deliver temporary reliefs. So far, the governors are winning, despite the federal government’s comprehensive victory at the Supreme Court. If the governors manage to sustain their victory for a little longer or dither about implementation until close to the general election, they may get away with a largely and deliberately compromised Supreme Court judgement. In fact, the federal government is going to discover that it is alone in this matter. Some few LGs may make a lot of noise, but they will not let the noise develop into a huge fight. Since the state legislatures still make laws for the running of the LGs, it will be a tool dreaded by the elected LG officials, particularly the chairmen, whose suspension could easily be procured by a combative and unforgiving governor.

  • Supreme Court nullification of National Lottery Act: implications for operations, regulation

    Supreme Court nullification of National Lottery Act: implications for operations, regulation

    • By Abiodun Olatunji

    The recent Supreme Court judgment in ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE & ORS V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION & ORS (SC/01/2008) has significantly altered the legal and regulatory framework governing lottery operations in Nigeria. The decision, which invalidated the National Lottery Act 2005, has raised pressing concerns about compliance, regulatory oversight, and the continued operation of lottery services, particularly within the telecommunications and Value-Added Services (VAS) sectors.

    It is imperative that we critically examine the implications of this judgement, the challenges it poses for industry operators, and the pathways toward ensuring regulatory compliance and business continuity. The task is not just to understand the judgment but also to develop proactive solutions that will ensure stability and sustained growth in the lottery and telecommunications industries.

    State of the Regulatory Regime Before the Supreme Court Judgement.

    In 2004, the Lagos State Government enacted the Lagos State Lotteries Law 2004. In 2007, the State Government also enacted the Casino and Gaming Regulatory Authority Law 2007, along with the Casino and Gaming Regulations 2008, the Pools and Betting Control Law 2003, and the Pools Betting Tax Law 2003. In 2008, the Lagos State Lotteries Law 2004 was amended by the Lagos State Lotteries (Amendment) Law 2008.

    In 2021, the Lagos State Government enacted the Lagos State Lotteries and Gaming Authority Law 2021. The long title of the 2021 Law describes it as:

    “A law to establish the Lagos State Lotteries and Gaming Authority, to harmonise all laws relating to gaming activities in Lagos State, provide for the regulation and control of all gaming activities, and for connected purposes.”

    Section 107 of the 2021 Law expressly repealed the Lagos State Lotteries (Amendment) Law 2008, the Lagos State Lotteries Law 2004, the Casino and Gaming Regulatory Authority Law 2007, the Casino and Gaming Regulations 2008, the Pools Betting Control Law 2003, and the Pools Betting Tax Law 2003.

    From these repealed laws and regulations, it is evident that the Lagos State Government has, since 2003, asserted its legislative authority over matters connected with games of chance. Notably, the Lagos State Lotteries Law 2004 predates the now-nullified National Lottery Act of 2005.

    The Lagos State Lotteries Law 2004, with its 2008 amendment, alongside the other laws mentioned, remained in force in Lagos State until April 19, 2021, when the Lagos State Lotteries and Gaming Authority Law 2021 came into effect.

    The implication is that, since 2003, the Lagos State Government, through its laws, has regulated every aspect of gaming and lottery activities in the state, including control and taxation. The government, through its enforcement agencies, has consistently ensured compliance with all its gaming laws by individuals and corporate entities.

    With the enactment of the National Lottery Act 2005 by the National Assembly—which had nationwide application—a jurisdictional dispute arose, leading to confusion among stakeholders in the gaming and lottery business, as they were caught between compliance with Federal law and Lagos State law.

    Up until November 22, 2024—when the Supreme Court finally settled the matter by nullifying the entire provisions of the National Lottery Act 2005 as unconstitutional—operators in the gaming and lottery industry appeared to comply with both the now-defunct Federal law and the Lagos State laws.

    For instance, obtaining a licence from the National Lottery Regulatory Commission (NLRC) was insufficient to operate or carry on gaming or lottery business in Lagos State without obtaining a corresponding licence from the Lagos State Government under the provisions of the Lagos State Lotteries and Gaming Authority Law 2021.

    In fact, Section 33(3) of the 2021 Law prohibits any person from operating or conducting any game of chance in Lagos State without obtaining a licence or authorisation from the Lagos State Lotteries and Gaming Authority.

    In early 2024, the Lagos State Lottery and Gaming Authority took stringent enforcement actions against gambling operators in the state who were identified as conducting gambling business or activities without proper licensing or authorisation from the state. Interestingly, many of the affected operators had been licensed by the now-defunct National Lottery Regulatory Commission under the National Lottery Act 2005.

    Earlier, in May 2020, the Lagos State Government had also declared certain gaming sites operating within the state illegal because they lacked a Lagos State-issued licence, even though they were licensed by the NLRC, which had then claimed its license had nationwide applicability.

    The dispute over whether the Federal Government or State Governments had exclusive control over lottery and gaming regulation predates the Supreme Court’s November 22, 2024, decision. In 2005, the Lagos State Government filed an Originating Summons on February 2, 2005, before the Lagos State High Court against National Sports Lottery Ltd and National Sports Lottery Management Company Ltd. The state government sought:

    1.  A declaration that the respondents had no legal right to carry on, operate, or conduct any lottery business, by any name or mode, to members of the public in Lagos State without first obtaining a licence issued by the Executive Governor of Lagos State under the Lagos State Lotteries Law 2004.

    2. A perpetual injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, servants, and privies from conducting such business without obtaining a licence from the state in accordance with the Lagos State Lotteries Law 2004.

    The respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the Lagos State High Court through a preliminary objection. This jurisdictional challenge escalated through the appellate courts, eventually reaching the Supreme Court, which, in 2023, ruled in favour of the Lagos State High Court’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court directed that the merits of the case be determined by the Lagos State High Court, affirming that it had jurisdiction over the issues raised in the case. The case is reported as ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF LAGOS STATE v. NATIONAL SPORTS LOTTERY LIMITED & ANOR (2023) LPELR-60359(SC)

    Interestingly, while the appeal against the Court of Appeal’s verdict was still pending before the Supreme Court in 2008, the Lagos State Government, through its Attorney General, invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 232[1] of the Constitution to challenge the validity and constitutionality of the National Lottery Act 2005.

    The Supreme Cout judgement and its implications

    The Lagos State Government in 2008 invoked the original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to seek a resolution of the dispute between it and the Federal Government on the validity and enforceability of the National Lottery Act 2005, Cap. N 145 LFN 2004 within the territory of Lagos State. Being a constitutional matter, a full panel of the court comprising of seven Justices heard and determine it.   In the suit the Lagos State Government sought the following declaratory and injunctive reliefs:

    • A DECLARATION that lottery or game of chance is not one of the 68 items in the Exclusive Legislative List in Part I to the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) (“the1999 Constitution) in respect of which the National Assembly has the vires to make laws for the whole of Nigeria and not incidental or supplementary to any matter mentioned in the list.

    Read Also: Top five countries offering best salaries, visa pathways for STEM professionals in 2025

    • A DECLARATION that having regard to the clear provisions of Section 4(2) and (3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) (“the 1999 Constitution”) the National Assembly lacks the vires to legally and constitutionally make any law to regulate and control the operation of lottery in Nigeria.

    • A DECLARATION that having regard to the clear provisions of Section 4(4) (a), (b) and Part II of the Second Schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) (“the 1999 Constitution’, matters relating to lottery do not fall within items which the National Assembly and the state house of assembly are concurrently empowered to make laws with regard thereto.

    •  A DECLARATION that having regard to the clear provisions of Section 4(7)(a) and (c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended)  the Lagos State Government (represented by the 1st Plaintiff) and the and 2nd  – 22nd Plaintiffs’ State, have the power, to the exclusion of the 1st and 2nd Defendants, to make laws to regulate and control the operation of lottery within their states.

    •  A DECLARATION that having regard to the clear provisions of Section 4(4)(b), (7)(a) and Section 299(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) the power of the National Assembly to make laws to regulate and control the operations of lottery is limited by the 1999 Constitution to only the federal capital territory.

    •  A DECLARATION that Sections 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the National Lottery Act N145, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, made by the National Assembly are inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.

    •  A DECLARATION that the National Lottery Act, N145, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria is inconsistent with the provisions of the 1999 Constitution.

    • AN ORDER nullifying Sections 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the National Lottery Act, Cap N145, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.

    •  AN ORDER nullifying the entirety of the National Lottery Act CAP N145, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.

    • AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st defendant either by himself, agents, privies, agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria or Federation of Nigeria, or through anybody acting on their behalf from implementing the provisions of Sections 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the National Lottery Act CAP N145, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, within the territory of the States of the Plaintiffs.

    • AN ORDER of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant either by himself, agents, privies, agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria or Federation of Nigeria, or through anybody acting on their behalf from taking any step or actions aimed at enforcing or continuing to enforce any/or all of the provisions of the National Lottery Act CAP N145, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, within the territory of the states of the plaintiff.

    The Supreme Court granted all the reliefs.

    The several questions raised in the suit may be summarised as:  

    Whether having regard to the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Federal Government through the National Assembly has any power to make laws on and/or regulate lotteries, gaming, and casino matters otherwise than within the Federal Capital Territory or on matters in the Exclusive and Concurrent Legislative Lists. 

    In resolving the issues raised in the suit, M.B IDRIS JSC who read the leading Judgement of the court adopted the issues formulated by the Defendant which read as follows:

    Whether the National Assembly is competent to enact the National Lottery Act 2005 having regard to its legislative competence and powers as donated by Sections 4(2) (3) (4) (7) Section 16(1)(a)(b)(c) and 2(a), (a) and (b), Items 60(a) and 62(a) of the Exclusive legislative list as contained under Part 1 of the Second Schedule and Item 7 (a) of the Concurrent legislative list under Part 2 of the Second Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)?

    In its landmark judgement, the Supreme Court unanimously held: “I hold that lottery does not constitute “trade and commerce” as envisaged under Item 62(a) of the Exclusive Legislative List as lottery is fundamentally a game of chance lacking the certainty, mutual exchange and reciprocity typically associated with trade and commerce. Unlike traditional commercial transactions involving a defined exchange of goods or services between parties, a lottery merely offers participants the prospect of winning without any assured return or specific value in exchange. Therefore, a lottery cannot be classified as ‘trade and commerce’ under the relevant item in the Exclusive Legislative List, as it fails to meet the criteria of an economic transaction involving the definite transfer of goods or services. Consequently, as lottery activities do not fall within the scope of ‘commercial intercourse’ as defined in AG OGUN STATE VS. ABERUAGBA & ORS 1985) LPELR – 3164 (SC) and analysed above, does the National Assembly have the requisite vires to legislate on the subject matter of lottery?”

    The Supreme Court went further and held that:

    “Lotteries neither constitute ‘trade and commerce’ as contemplated under Items 62(a) and (d) of the Exclusive Legislative List, nor do they qualify as an ‘economic activity’ within the meaning of Section 16(4)(b) of the Nigerian Constitution taking cognizance of the fact that neither did the term ‘lottery’ nor any closely related term appear explicitly in the Legislative List. It therefore follows that lotteries fall outside the legislative competence of the National Assembly. The National Assembly’s power to legislate is restricted to those powers expressly granted by the Nigerian Constitution, particularly Section 4(2), (4)(a) and (b) of the Nigerian Constitution, a principle already discussed in detail in this judgment and not requiring further elaboration. I therefore hold that the National Lottery Act enacted by the National Assembly exceeds its constitutional authority and is, therefore, ultra vires and unconstitutional”.

    Accordingly, the Supreme Court invalidated the National Lottery Act 2005, ruling that the Federal Government, through the National Lottery Regulatory Commission (NLRC), has no power to regulate lottery or any other business involving game of chance.  In addition, lotteries, gaming, and casino regulation are by virtue of Section 4(7) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), matters within the exclusive legislative powers and jurisdiction of the states.  The Supreme Court specifically ordered as follows;

    An ORDER is made nullifying the entirety of the National Lottery Act CAP N145, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.

    AN ORDER of perpetual injunction is made restraining the 1st Defendant either by himself, agents, privies, agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria or Federation of Nigeria, or through anybody acting on their behalf from implementing the provisions of Sections 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the National Lottery Act CAP N145, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, within the territory of the States of the Plaintiffs.

    AN ORDER of perpetual injunction is made restraining the 1st Defendant either by Himself, agents, privies, agencies of the Federal Government of Nigeria or Federation of Nigeria, or through anybody acting cn their behalf from taking any step or actions aimed at enforcing or continuing to enforce any/or provisions of the National Lottery Act all of the provisions of the National Lottery Act CAP N145, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, within the territory of the states of the plaintiffs.

    It is instructive to note that, by virtue of Section 235 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (CFRN), no appeal shall lie to any other body or person from any determination of the Supreme Court.

    Furthermore, Section 1(1) of the same Constitution proclaims its supremacy and the binding force of its provisions on all authorities and persons throughout the Federation.

    It is, therefore, a constitutional mandate for all authorities and persons to ensure full compliance with, and implementation of, the decisions of the Supreme Court. Any attempt to circumvent such decisions—whether through legislative or executive overreach—would be unconstitutional and a nullity.

    It is in light of this that the ongoing attempt by the House of Representatives—an arm of the National Assembly—to resurrect the annulled National Lottery Act (NLA) through the proposed Central Gaming Bill 2025 must be critically examined.

    The Bill, which is the initiative of the current Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Okezie Kalu, and six others, has reportedly passed its second reading on the floor of the House. Interestingly, the Bill seeks to repeal the National Lottery Act 2005 and to regulate all forms of online and remote gaming across all geographical boundaries of the federating units.

    I must state unequivocally that any law enacted by the National Assembly to regulate games of chance—whether online or retail—would be unconstitutional, null, and void in light of the provisions of Sections 4(2), 4(4)(a), and 4(4)(b) of the Constitution.

    These provisions limit the legislative competence of the Federal Government to making laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Federation or any part thereof only in relation to matters contained in the Exclusive Legislative List (as set out in Part I of the Second Schedule) and matters contained in the Concurrent Legislative List (as set out in the First Column of Part II of the Second Schedule to the Constitution), as well as any other matter over which it is expressly empowered by the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court has made it unequivocally clear—and it is now settled law—that games of chance fall outside the legislative competence of the Federal Government and are exclusively within the legislative authority of the federating states.

    In furtherance of this, Section 4(7)(a) of the Constitution empowers the House of Assembly of each state to make laws for the peace, order, and good governance of the state or any part thereof concerning any matter not included in the Exclusive Legislative List.

    Matters that are neither in the Exclusive nor the Concurrent Legislative List are commonly referred to as residual matters, and they are constitutionally allocated exclusively to the states. Lottery and other games of chance fall within this category. The Central Gaming Bill 2025 is, therefore, ultra vires the legislative powers of the House of Representatives.

    Even more troubling is the fact that the Bill proposes to repeal the already annulled National Lottery Act of 2005. This raises a fundamental question: Is the House of Representatives, by this Bill, constituting itself into an appellate body over a final decision of the Supreme Court, notwithstanding the clear provisions of Section 235 of the Constitution?

    The answer is obvious—such an action is entirely unconstitutional. The National Assembly is a creation of the Constitution and derives its authority and powers from it. It must, therefore, conform to, respect, uphold, and implement all the provisions of the Constitution to the letter. It cannot act in negation of, or in defiance of, the Constitution.

    It is, therefore, my humble submission that the Central Gaming Bill 2025, being unconstitutional, should be discarded, and all legislative work on it should be set aside. I take this opportunity to call on the Honorable Attorney General of the Federation, as the Chief Law Officer of the Country, to advise the National Assembly on the unconstitutional nature of this Bill and the necessity of respecting the decision of the Supreme Court.

    Key Takeaways from the Judgment:

    The National Lottery Act 2005 is null and void. The entirety of the National Lottery Act 2005 has been nullified.

    The National Lottery Regulatory Commission (NLRC) has no legal authority over lottery operations in any state of the Federation. The NLRC  by the Judgement ceases to exist.

    Licenses, permits, and approvals previously issued by the NLRC for operations are no longer valid.

    Each state now has exclusive legislative and regulatory authority over lottery operations and Games of Chance within its jurisdiction. In Lagos State, the law applicable now is the Lagos State Lotteries and Gaming Authority Law 2021

    Operators must now comply with individual state laws and obtain licenses from respective state governments.

    The National Lottery Trust Fund (NLTF), which was funded through contributions from lottery operators under the annulled Act, no longer has a legal basis to demand payments from lottery businesses. By the Judgement of the Supreme Court, the National Lottery Trust Fund has been abolished.

    Federal laws on lottery taxation, licensing, and compliance enforcement have become unenforceable in the states.

    The judgment no doubt has ushered in a new regulatory era, where businesses must navigate a decentralised lottery regulation framework, creating both challenges and opportunities for industry players. Note that the following states who were also plaintiffs in the suit have enacted laws to regulate lotteries and gaming businesses within their territories; Lagos, Ondo, Oyo, Ekiti, Ogun, Rivers, Cross Rivers, Imo, Abia, Enugu, Edo, Delta and others.

    The Legal Status of Licenses and Permits Issued by the NLRC

    1. All licenses/permits issued by the NLRC to lottery operators have been invalidated by the judgment.

    2. Businesses operating lotteries under previous NLRC licenses must now obtain licenses from the state(s) where they operate.

    3. Telecommunications operators and Value-Added Service (VAS) aggregators that relied on NLRC-issued permits for lottery-based promotions must now comply with state laws.

    4. Existing lottery businesses must apply for new state-specific licenses.

    5. Operators without valid state licenses risk sanctions or business shutdowns by state regulatory authorities.

    6.  VAS aggregators and telecom operators must ensure compliance with new state-level lottery regulations.

    Impact on Mobile Lottery, Mobile Gaming, and Chance-Based Promotions via Telecom Platform

    1.  Telecom-based lottery services (e.g., SMS-based lotteries, mobile gaming, and chance-based promotions) must now comply with State laws.

    2. The uniform national licensing system is no longer valid, leading to fragmented regulations across different States.

    3. States may impose different taxes, licensing fees, and compliance requirements, increasing the regulatory burden on telecom operators.

    4. Operators must obtain state licenses for each State they operate in.

    5. Telecom partnerships with lottery providers must now consider State-by-State compliance risks.

    6. Some States may impose stricter regulations or ban lottery services entirely.

    The Immediate Impact on Telecommunications and VAS-Based Lottery Operations

    The Nigerian telecommunications industry plays a pivotal role in lottery operations, particularly through Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) and Value-Added Services (VAS) providers. These entities facilitate the deployment of mobile-based lottery services, SMS gaming, digital raffle draws, sports betting, casino, pool betting, etc enabling millions of Nigerians to participate in lottery activities.

    Before this judgment, lottery operators, VAS aggregators, and MNOs operated under a unified national regulatory framework, securing approvals from the NLRC and the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC). However, following the Supreme Court’s decision, this single framework no longer exists, and operators must now comply with different state regulations.

    As we all know, VAS Providers are companies that create and deliver digital content, mobile applications, and interactive services that run on telecom networks, they enable lottery operators, gaming companies, and digital service providers to offer lottery games, SMS-based promotions, mobile gaming, and interactive contents to consumers.

    Examples of  VAS Providers in the Lottery Industry include a lottery company that partners with a VAS provider to offer SMS-based lottery tickets, a gaming company that uses a VAS provider to enable mobile-based betting and interactive games, a TV show that runs a lottery draw where participants enter by sending an SMS via a VAS provider’s platform.

    A VAS Aggregator on the other hand is a company that acts as an intermediary between VAS Providers and Telecom Operators. Instead of every VAS provider negotiating directly with mobile network operators (MTN, Airtel, Glo, 9mobile), aggregators streamline connections by managing multiple VAS services on behalf of telecoms.

    Major telecoms often act as VAS aggregators, meaning they provide the infrastructure for third-party VAS providers to deliver services through USSD, SMS, or mobile apps. For instance, MTN or Airtel may not develop a lottery or gaming service but host third-party VAS providers offering gaming content through its platform.

    Vas Aggregators therefore enable telecom subscribers to participate in lottery games via SMS, USSD, IVR (Interactive Voice Response), or mobile apps. They also handle billing, content delivery, and user engagement for lottery and gaming services and ensure regulatory compliance with telecom policies and state laws

     Impact of the Supreme Court Judgment on VAS Providers and Aggregators

    Since lottery operations are now exclusively regulated by states, the Judgement has the following implications for VAS Providers and Aggregators:

     Compliance With State-Specific Lottery Regulations

    1.            VAS providers must now obtain licenses from individual states rather than relying on an NLRC-issued permit which is no longer valid.

    2.            VAS aggregators must ensure that all lottery services comply with state laws before offering them via telecom networks.

    3.            Each state may impose its own lottery rules, taxes, and compliance requirements, making operations more complex for VAS providers.

    4.            Operators must secure multiple licenses if they want to offer lottery services in multiple states.

    5.            Existing Agreements between VAS providers, aggregators, and telecom operators based on the nullified National Lottery Act 2005 must now be reviewed on a state-by-state basis.

    6.            VAS companies must renegotiate contracts to align with state laws.

    Legal and Compliance Strategy

    1.            Engage legal experts to conduct a compliance audit.

    2.            Apply for licenses in each state where lottery services will be offered.

    3.            Ensure telecom partners are aware of the new legal framework.

    4.            Negotiate State-specific agreements with telecom operators.

    5.            Develop alternative service models that comply with state laws.

    6.            Monitor State lottery regulations to stay updated on compliance requirements.

    Major Compliance and Operational Challenges for Telecom-Based Lottery Services:

    1.  There is a risk of inconsistent regulatory approaches across different States, leading to operational complexity.

    2.  The absence of a unified licensing regime could lead to increased compliance costs and potential legal disputes.

    These challenges necessitate a new strategic approach to regulatory compliance and business continuity in the lottery and telecom sectors.

    3. Business Continuity: Strategic Responses to the Shifting Regulatory Landscape

    To successfully adapt to this new regulatory reality, MNOs, VAS providers, and lottery operators must proactively implement strategies that ensure seamless operations while complying with state-specific laws.

    (A) Legal and Regulatory Compliance

    1.            Conduct a comprehensive regulatory audit to identify states where lottery operations are active and determine the applicable licensing requirements.

    2.            Engage legal and regulatory experts to develop a robust compliance framework tailored to multiple state laws.

    3.            Monitor evolving tate-level lottery regulations and anticipate future amendments.

    4.            Establish direct engagement channels with state governments to facilitate compliance and licensing approvals.

    (B) Licensing and Operational Adjustments

    1.            Apply for and obtain State-level lottery licenses where required.

    2.            Develop State-compliant lottery products to align with diverse regulatory requirements.

    3.            Implement a centralised compliance management system to track and ensure adherence to multiple state regulations.

    (C) Policy Advocacy and Industry Collaboration

    1.            Engage the Nigerian Governors’ Forum (NGF) and State Legislators to push for harmonized state lottery regulations.

    2.            Work collectively as an industry to advocate for standardized licensing and operational guidelines.

    3.            Encourage the Federal Government to explore constitutional amendments that may provide a more unified approach to lottery regulation.

    By taking these proactive steps, industry players can minimize legal risks, ensure regulatory compliance, and sustain business operations despite the shifting legal landscape.

    4. Shaping the Future of Lottery Regulation in Nigeria

    The Supreme Court Judgement presents both regulatory uncertainty and an opportunity for positive transformation in the lottery sector. The way forward must be collaborative, involving:

    State governments creating clear and investor-friendly regulations.

    Industry players working together to develop best practices and compliance strategies.

    A coordinated approach to regulatory engagement to prevent excessive fragmentation.

    Recommended Legal and Regulatory Actionable Steps

    To minimize operational disruptions and ensure compliance, lottery businesses, telecom operators, and VAS providers should take the following steps:

    Short-Term Recommendations

    1.            Conduct an immediate legal audit of all lottery-related operations.

    2.            Engage legal experts to assess compliance risks in each state.

    3.            Identify States with existing lottery laws and apply for relevant licenses.

    4.            Renegotiate tripartite agreements between telecoms, VAS providers, and lottery operators.

    Long-Term Recommendations

    1.            Work with State Governments to support the passage of clear and business-friendly lottery regulations.

    2.            Advocate for a possible harmonized State-level licensing framework to reduce administrative complexity.

    3.            Engage in compliance training for internal legal and operational teams.

    4.            Monitor ongoing developments, including any possible legislative amendments at the Federal or State level.

    This period of transition should be seen not just as a challenge but as an opportunity to create a more sustainable and efficient lottery industry.

    Conclusion

    The post-National Lottery Act era requires all stakeholders to think differently, act strategically, and collaborate effectively. We must ensure that the telecommunications and lottery sectors remain viable, innovative, and legally compliant under this new decentralized regulatory framework.

    The judgement though creates significant challenges for market players but it also presents an opportunity for State Governments to establish clearer and more competitive regulatory frameworks. Businesses must swiftly adapt to these changes to ensure continued operations while minimizing legal and compliance risks.

    •          Olatunji, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), is a Partner at Abdullahi Ibrahim & Co.

  • UPDATED: Supreme Courtreverses judgment sacking Anyanwu as PDP national secretary 

    UPDATED: Supreme Courtreverses judgment sacking Anyanwu as PDP national secretary 

    The Supreme Court has set aside the December 20, 2024 majority judgment of the Court of Appeal in Enugu sacking Senator Samuel Anyanwu as the National Secretary of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

    A five-member panel of the apex court, presided over by Justice Uwani Abba-Aji was unanimous, in a judgment on Friday, that both the High Court of Enugu State and Court of Appeal in Enugu lacked the jurisdiction to have heard the suit.

    Justice Jamilu Tukur, in the lad judgment, held that the issues in the suit filed by Emmanuel Aniagwu at the HIgh Court of Enugu State bordered on matters relating to internal affairs of the PDP which are not justiciable and over which no courts have jurisdiction.

    Justice Tukur held that it is indisputable that Aniagwu’s case before the High Court of Enugu, fell squarely within the parameter of an internal affair of a political party, which the trial court ought to have refused to entertain.

    He held that the minority decision of the Court of Appeal in Enugu, delivered by Justice Joseph Ekanem was apt as it correctly applied the law to hold that the court lacked jurisdiction because the case bordered squarely on who should occupy the office of the National Secretary of the PDP.

    Justice Tukur added that the trial court and the majority decision of the Court of Appeal, Enugu got it wrong when they chose to expend scarce judicial time on a case over which they have no jurisdiction.

    Justice Tukur also held that Anyanwu’s participation in the last governorship election in Imo State, as the candidate of the PDP, was pursuant to the approval of the party’s leadership as against the claim by Aniagwu.

    Read Also: PDP chieftain canvasses support for Rivers Sole Administrator

    He equally found that Aniagwu lacked the locus standi (the legal right) to have instituted the suit having not shown the personal injury he suffered and how Anyanwu’s conduct affected him personally.

    Justice Tukur described Aniagwu as a busy body and an interloper whose main purpose was to ensure the installation of Ude-Okoye to replace Anyanwu and serve out what was left of his (Anyanwu’s) tenure.

    The judge also noted that, while Ude-Okoye was positioned to be the beneficiary of the case, Aniagwu chose not to made a party in the suit he filed before the High Court of Enugu State.

    He affirmed the minority judgment of the Enugu division of the Court of Appeal, delivered by Justice Ekanem, where he held that the court was without the requisite jurisdiction to hear the case.

    Justice Tukur set aside the majority decision of the Court of Appeal in Enugu, which affirmed the judgment of the High Court of Enugu State, delivered on December 22, 2023.

    He proceeded to strike out the suit filed by Aniagwu before the High Court of Enugu State for want of jurisdiction.

    Aniagwu’s grouse had been that, by the constitution of PDP, Anyanwu could not participate in the last Imo State governorship election and still remain in office as the National Secretary of the party.

    One of the prayers granted by the High Court in its December 22, 2023 judgment was the issuance of an order of perpetual injunction restraining Anyanwu from further parading himself as the National Secretary of the PDP having relinquish the said position by conduct.

    The court also made an order commanding the PDP “to recognise, in all situations, for all purposes and every manner necessaril, including swearing in Honourable S.K. E. Ude-Okoye, the person recommended by the South East Zonal Executive of the first defendant as the National Secretary of the first defendant to enable Ude-Okoye to serve out the time left in the tenure of Anyanwu, who was elected as the National Secretary in 2021.”

    Anyanwu appealed the decision and, in its judgment on December 20, 2023, the Court of Appeal in Enugu dismissed Anyanwu’s appeal on the grounds that he was, by virtue of the provision of the PDP’s constitution and electoral guidelines, he (Anyanwu) was deemed to have resigned as the National Secretary of the party at the time he collected the expression of interest and nomination forms to contest the Imo governorship election.

  • Massive protest rocks Abuja over Benue judiciary crisis

    Massive protest rocks Abuja over Benue judiciary crisis

    Thousands of protesters, led by the Coalition of Civil Society Organisations in Nigeria, marched on major roads leading to the National Assembly and Supreme Court on Monday to voice their opposition to the ongoing judicial crisis in Benue State.

    The protesters called on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to take swift action to resolve the crisis and ensure justice is served. They also urged the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, to urgently intervene and remove corrupt judges from the judiciary.

    The demonstration, which saw participation from civil society organizations, human rights groups, and concerned citizens, featured placards and banners condemning the alleged manipulation of the Benue State Local Government Election Tribunal by politicians.

    Speaking to the press during the protest, the Chief Convener of the coalition, Comrade Igwe Ude-Umanta, accused Justice Maurice Ikpambese, the Chief Judge of Benue State, of unlawfully granting a waiver to petitioners of the Local Government Election Tribunal. This action was said to violate the constitutional requirement for a security deposit.

    The group also alleged that relocating the tribunal to Abuja by the State Chief Judge was in direct violation of Benue State’s electoral laws.

    They expressed disappointment over the National Judicial Council’s (NJC) failure to take action against Ikpambese despite formal petitions regarding his judicial misconduct in the state.

    According to Ude-Umanta, “The judiciary is the bedrock of any democracy, but today, it has become more politicised than registered political parties.

    “How can a Chief Judge flagrantly abuse his office and the NJC remains silent?”

    Read Also: Removal of Benue Chief Judge stands, relocation of tribunal to Abuja illegal-Ebute

    The coalition also frowned at the order of Justice M.M. Adamu of the FCT High Court compelling the Benue State Local Government Election Tribunal to sit in Abuja, despite a previous court order restraining the tribunal from sitting outside Benue State.

    The coalition then urged Justice Kekere-Ekun to act swiftly in purging corrupt elements from the judiciary.

    It also called on President Tinubu to intervene, warning that the Benue judiciary crisis could undermine public trust in the legal system.

    The protesters alleged threats of police intimidation but commended the FCT Commissioner of Police for ensuring orderliness.

    Ude-Umanta vowed that the coalition will relent adding that they will continue their agitation until justice is restored.

  • Wike: Fubara’s letter to Rivers Assembly on Supreme Court verdict ‘useless’

    Wike: Fubara’s letter to Rivers Assembly on Supreme Court verdict ‘useless’

    Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister, Nyesom Wike, on Wednesday dismissed as “useless” the letter sent by Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, to the state House of Assembly requesting an audience with lawmakers.

    The letter was reportedly linked to discussions on implementing the Supreme Court’s verdict on the state’s political affairs.

    Wike disclosed this during a live broadcast with journalists in Abuja.

    He said: “You have had a frosty relationship with an arm of government. If you are a good politician, will you go and write a letter? Is it by writing a letter signed by the SSG? What an insult! Is it how it is done? If you are a politician you know what to do.

    “You want to play to the gallery which is rubbish. All these letters are useless, you are not sincere, you are playing to the gallery,” he said.

    Wike said Speaker Martins Amaewhule and other lawmakers in the Rivers Assembly are not Fubara’s boys and should be accorded some respect.

    Wike said instead of inviting members of the House through a public letter, Fubara should have called Amaewhule and his team via the phone and agreed on a date and time for a meeting.

    On Friday, February 28, 2025, the Supreme Court made final decisions on the political situation in the oil-rich South-South state.

    The judgment delivered by Justice Emmanuel Akomaye, the five-man panel of the court unanimously dismissed the cross-appeal filed by Fubara challenging the validity of the House of Assembly presided over by Martins Amaewhule as the Speaker.

    In dismissing Fubara’s appeal, the court ordered Martin Amaewhule to resume sitting immediately with other elected members of the Rivers State House of Assembly.

    The apex court also barred the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), the Accountant General of the Federation, and other agencies from releasing funds to the Government of Rivers State until it purges itself of what the court described as flagrant disobedience to court orders.

    Read Also: Wike cautions Abuja residents against sabotaging govt efforts

    Also, the apex court declared the local government election conducted in the state on October 5, 2024, as invalid.

    Fubara subsequently said he would fully implement the judgments of the apex court and directed the Rivers State Independent Electoral Electoral Commission (RSIEC) to come up with modalities for the fresh election.

    The electoral commission fixed August 9, 2025, to conduct a fresh local government poll in the state.

    The Secretary to the State Government, Tammy Danagogo, in a letter dated March 7, 2025, sought a meeting with the lawmakers for March 10, 2025 to discuss the re-presentation of the 2025 budget and a peace talk.

    However, the Assembly had asked the governor to channel his invitation properly.

  • Supreme Court clears political fog over Rivers

    Supreme Court clears political fog over Rivers

    The much-awaited certified true copy (CTC) of the Supreme Court verdict on the Rivers State political crisis which was released on Thursday has ended all legal disputes among the feuding parties. With the court’s profound findings, any matter pending in court has died a natural death. The court without mincing words defined the status of the 27 lawmakers led by Speaker Martins Amaewhule as authentic, adding that it is the only body that Governor Siminalayi Fubara can do business with.

    Until the decision, Fubara was comfortable dealing with the then Victor Oko-Jumbo-led three-man assembly, claiming that the Amaewhule group had defected from the Peoples Democratic (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC). Even after the Court of Appeal affirmed a Federal High Court order that it was constitutionally wrong of him to deal with only three of the 32-man assembly, Fubara  disobeyed the orders. He insisted on having his way, boasting that the “house exists at his pleasure”.

      Rather than do as directed by the high and appeal courts in Abuja so that peace can reign in the state, he went to a state high court in Port Harcourt to obtain an order to enable him present the 2025 budget to the Oko-Jumbo group, even after his presentation of the 2024 budget to the same set of lawmakers had been declared illegal. It was an error on his part. The apex court was unsparing in its reprimand of the governor, who it described as a despot that collapsed the government of the state so that he could have his way. Indeed, it was needless for him to have gone to the high court, while pursuing a cross-appeal at the apex court, which pronouncement would swallow whatever the lower court comes up with, no matter how brilliant.

    Fubara was only buying time and postponing the day of reckoning which finally came on February 28 . Still he did not see the handwriting on the wall when Amaewhule and co., went to court to stop him from further receiving allocations from the central bank and the accountant-general of the federation as he was not operating a valid budget. The high court decided in the plaintiffs’ favour. The governor went on appeal and won. The appeal court held that it was a constitutional matter on which the high court had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed. It restored the high court order. Quoting from the appeal court verdict, the apex court held:

    Read Also: Natasha/Akpabio feud: External plot to tarnish Nigeria’s image – NASAC

    “The objective of the high court case is to stop the release of funds to the governor so as to compel him to cause the making of the appropriation law by the Rivers State House of Assembly properly constituted as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution… the Court of Appeal also acknowledged that based on two of its judgments as at today the Amaewhule group who allegedly defected are still legitimate members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and empowered to conduct the business of the Rivers State House of Assembly”. It said it was therefore wrong of the appeal court to have declared that the high court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the fund allocation case.

      According to the apex court, Fubara’s fear of impeachment led to his cat-and-mouse relationship with the Amaewhule group. Justice Emmanuel Agim, in the lead judgment, held that the governor started the prevention of the sittings of the assembly as constituted by its members as prescribed by Section 96 of the Constitution. His reliance on Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution and the Doctrine of Necessity, His Lordship said, “is to continue the brazen subversion of Rivers State House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution and legitimate government in Rivers State. Having by his own admission engaged in a series of illegal activities just to prevent the other 27 lawmakers from participating in the proceedings of the House to carry out their legitimate legislative duties which they were elected to do, his resort to the aforesaid Sections 102 and 109 and the Doctrine of Necessity on the basis of his allegation that they have defected is a red herring to perpetuate his subversion of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution and democratic government in Rivers State”.

    The court was not done: “The governor had collapsed the Rivers State House of Assembly. Therefore, no question about any member having lost his seat in that House due to defection can validly arise. There must be a House of Assembly for any constitutional processes therein to take place. The claim that the 27 members are no longer members of the House on the basis of an alleged defection is a continuation of his determination to prevent them from participating in the proceedings of the House. It is an engagement in chicanery. What is clear is that the 27 lawmakers are still valid members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and cannot be prevented from participating in the proceedings of the House by the governor in cahoots with the four other members. Sections 102 and 109 cannot be invoked in aid of this unconstitutional enterprise”.

    Berating the governor for choosing to collapse the legislature to enable him govern as a despot, the apex court declared: “As it is, there is no government in Rivers State… political disagreements cannot justify these attacks and contempt for the rule of law by the governor of a state or any person. What he has done is to destroy the government for the fear of being impeached”. With this decision, the case before the Port Harcourt High Court seeking to sack the 27 lawmakers for alleged defection has become mere academic exercise. It is as dead as a dodo.

  • Supreme Court fixes June 6 for judgment in 20-year old dispute over Gwandu Emirate stool

    Supreme Court fixes June 6 for judgment in 20-year old dispute over Gwandu Emirate stool

    The Supreme Court has scheduled judgment for June 6 in the 20-year old dispute over who should occupy the stool of the Emir of Gwandu in Kebbi State.

    A five-member panel of the court, presided over by Justice Uwani Abba Aji, chose the date on Tuesday after taking final arguments from lawyers to parties in the about three appeals filed.

    The appeals are mainly challenging the order granted about seven years ago by the Sokoto Division of the Court of Appeal, which reinstated HRH Alhaji Mustapha Jokolo as the 19th Emir of Gwandu.

    Since the order for reinstatement of Jokolo was made, the Kebbi State Government has failed to comply.

    Alhaji Jokolo was deposed in 2005, an action he promptly challenged his dethronement before the Kebbi State High Court.

    Read Also: UPDATED: We will implement Supreme Court’s judgement in full, says Fubara 

    In 2014, a state High Court sitting in Birnin Kebbi ordered Alhaji Jokolo’s immediate reinstatement, upon being satisfied that he was illegally deposed and that due process was not followed.

    The Kebbi State Government and Jokolo’s successor subsequently appealled, challenging the decision of the State High Court.

    In a judgment in 2016, the Court of Appeal held that the deposition of the Emir contravened sections 6 and 7 of the Chief Appointment and Deposition Law of the State because the Governor neither made an inquiry into the allegation against the Emir nor consulted the Kebbi State’s Council of Chiefs before arriving at his decision.

  • JUST IN: We will implement Supreme Court’s judgement in full, says Fubara 

    JUST IN: We will implement Supreme Court’s judgement in full, says Fubara 

    Rivers State Governor, Siminalayi Fubara, has assured that his administration will implement the Supreme Court’s judgement to the fullest. 

    The governor gave the assurance during the inauguration of the New Judges Quarters built by his administration in the Old GRA, Port Harcourt on Tuesday.

    Read Also: Fubara: Pay day for outlawry!

    Fubara insisted that no personal interest should override the collective good and peace of Rivers State, saying that no price would be too much company for peace.

    Details shortly…