Tag: Supreme Court

By Fisayo David Oke

On November 22, 2024, the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered a landmark judgment that significantly altered the country’s regulatory landscape of the lottery and gaming industry. The court unanimously held that lottery regulation does not fall within the legislative competence of the National Assembly, as it is not expressly provided for in the constitution.

This decision nullified the National Lottery Act, effectively dismantling the National Lottery Regulatory Commission (NLRC) and affirming that lottery regulation falls within the residual powers of state governments.

The ruling has far-reaching implications, particularly concerning responsible gambling and Nigeria’s overall gaming regulatory framework. The judgment has led to the decentralization of lottery regulation, shifting regulatory authority entirely to state governments. Before this ruling, the federal government, through the NLRC, and the various state governments, had exercised regulatory control over the gaming industry.

The Lagos State Lottery and Gaming Authority and the Oyo State Gaming Board, among others, played significant roles in enforcing responsible gambling practices within their jurisdictions. However, conflicts frequently arose between federal and state authorities over jurisdictional control, leading to the legal proceedings that ended in the Supreme Court’s decision.

The ruling resolves these jurisdictional clashes by affirming that lottery regulation is an exclusive matter for the states, granting them complete autonomy over the industry.

While this ruling reinforces the constitutional autonomy of states, it also presents challenges in maintaining regulatory uniformity across the country. The potential for a multiplicity of regulations could lead to a fragmented industry where states adopt different enforcement standards, potentially creating loopholes that unscrupulous operators may exploit.

However, this challenge can be mitigated through cooperative agreements among states. Some states have already taken steps in this direction by establishing the Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN), a platform for harmonizing gaming laws and fostering collaboration.

A treaty among states could further formalize these efforts, ensuring uniformity in critical areas such as licensing standards, responsible gambling enforcement, and consumer protection mechanisms. It remains to be seen how effective the FSGRN will be in bridging the potential regulatory gaps.

Read Also: Akufo-Addo urges Nigerian elite to lead West Africa, drive continental unity

The ruling has also introduced new regulatory challenges. Operators with physical gaming platforms may benefit from eliminating multiple payments that previously involved federal and state-level fees.

However, operators running online gaming platforms now face difficulty aligning their operations with various state regulations despite having previously complied with federal regulations.

Furthermore, the fate of non-members of the Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria remains uncertain, highlighting potential disunity among states in regulatory approaches.

Before the Supreme Court decision, some states had no dedicated regulatory bodies, relying only on revenue collection agencies for taxation purposes rather than comprehensive gaming oversight. This gap may result in inconsistencies in enforcement and consumer protection.

Furthermore, states may lack the technological expertise required to regulate online gaming operations effectively, which could lead to enforcement challenges. One of the advantages previously enjoyed under federal regulation was the ease of collaboration with sister agencies, such as financial crime regulators and consumer protection bodies. With the shift to state control, such collaborations may become more complex, potentially affecting the efficiency of regulatory enforcement.

Consumer protection remains a vital concern in the wake of this ruling.

A fragmented regulatory system increases the risk of responsible gambling evasion, where individuals and operators may exploit jurisdictional disparities to circumvent responsible gambling safeguards. Without a unified national framework, there is a possibility that some states may adopt lenient policies that fail to adequately address problem of gambling, while others may implement stringent measures.

This inconsistency could lead to increased gambling-related harm, particularly among vulnerable populations, including minors and individuals struggling with gambling addiction.

Additionally, the absence of a central authority may limit avenues for consumer redress, exposing players to fraudulent or exploitative practices by unscrupulous operators who take advantage of regulatory gaps.

However, the Supreme Court’s decision also presents opportunities for positive reform in the gaming industry. State governments, now fully empowered to regulate gaming within their jurisdictions, have the potential to develop tailored policies that better reflect the specific needs of their local economies and societies. Some states, particularly those with well-established regulatory frameworks such as Lagos, Oyo and Ekiti, appear to have a commitment to responsible gambling enforcement. The ruling allows such states to further strengthen their efforts without interference from federal authorities. Moreover, states can implement innovative, responsible gambling initiatives, including self-exclusion programs, public awareness campaigns, and partnerships with civil society and non-profit organizations which leads the campaign for safer gambling and protection and offers support for those put in harm’s way by gambling.

Strengthening inter-state cooperation through mechanisms such as the FSGRN can help mitigate the risks of regulatory inconsistency and consumer exploitation. States must also invest in capacity-building to ensure their regulatory agencies have the expertise and resources to effectively oversee the gaming industry and enforce responsible gambling measures. In addition, partnerships with international regulatory bodies and experts in responsible gambling can provide valuable insights that will enhance the effectiveness of state-level regulations.

The Supreme Court’s ruling marks a pivotal moment in Nigeria’s gaming industry, reaffirming the constitutional principle that residual matters belong to the states while presenting new challenges and opportunities. While concerns about regulatory fragmentation and consumer protection must be addressed, the ruling also paves the way for states to develop more effective and localized responsible gambling policies. Moving forward, a collaborative approach among state governments, policymakers, and industry stakeholders will be essential to ensure that the gaming industry operates in a manner that prioritizes consumer protection, promotes ethical gaming practices, and mitigates gambling-related harm.

•Oke writes from Ibadan.

• By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

In 1954 Sir John Verity lost his job because he won an argument. It was in his ninth year in office as Chief Justice of colonial Nigeria. Sir John arrived in Nigeria in October 1945 from British Guyana, where he had served in a similar position since 1941. At the time, Nigeria was still a unitary system under colonial rule.

Two years before Sir John’s arrival, the Native Courts (Colony) Ordinance of 1943 had created a “Supreme Court of Justice” for the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. Taslim Elias, the distinguished academic destined to play a significant role in the administration of law and courts in post-colonial Africa, described the structure of the colonial court system that Sir John met in Nigeria as comprising “a Supreme Court, which is the highest court for the territory. It consists of two parts, a Divisional Court and a Full Court (as in the West African colonies), or a High Court and a Court of Appeal (as in several other colonies such as Jamaica, Singapore and Kenya), or simply a High Court (as in Uganda and Northern Rhodesia).”

That system had existed with modest adaptation since the Amalgamation in 1914. In his Amalgamation Report in 1919, Frederick Lugard, Nigeria’s founding Governor-General, pointed out that the court system was made up of a Chief Justice and Puisne Judges who “sat at certain places and visited on Assize the ‘District Courts.’”

In 1951, six years into Sir John’s tenure as Chief Justice, the colonial government turned the country into a federation. Two years later, one of the issues to engage the constitutional conference that began in London was the implication of this new structure for judicial administration. As the conference began, the delegates – mostly politicians who preferred in the language of the day to be called “nationalists” – advocated the decentralisation of the judiciary. Sir John opposed the proposal, venturing with what proved to be accurate foresight, that such a step “might lead to judges and magistrates becoming tools in the hands of politicians” and “might eventually lead to the control of the judiciary by the executive.”

The conference relocated to Lagos in 1954 where the politicians overwhelmingly approved the proposal to regionalise the judiciary. Having lost the fight over the future of the judiciary that he led, Sir John took an early retirement from the office of Chief Justice and became the penultimate English man in the role.

In the reorganisation of the court system that followed upon the conclusion of the constitutional conference, a Federal Supreme Court (FSC) was created in 1954. The regions had high courts from which appeals could go to the FSC. The highest court for the country remained the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.

By 1963, the nationalists fighting for independence one decade earlier had metamorphosed into political incumbents seeking control of the courts (like their colonial predecessors). The Privy Council had effectively ruled in favour of the opposition Action Group (AG) on the question of whether the regional governor could remove a renegade premier, Ladoke Akintola, without a formal vote in the regional parliament.

Read Also: IGP warns officers against gross violation of rights, misconduct

Confronted with the loss of a prized ally helpfully decimating the ranks of a loathed political foe, the then-ruling federal coalition led by the Northern Peoples’ Congress (NPC), legislated the Privy Council out of existence, abolished the Judicial Service Commission, and made the Supreme Court Nigeria’s apex court. Sir John’s prophecy had become reality.

Although the 1963 Constitution enabled the court to sit “in such other places in Nigeria as the Chief Justice of Nigeria may appoint”, the Supreme Court has functioned from its seat, first in Lagos when it was the capital city for the first three decades after independence and, thereafter, from Abuja, the current federal capital. The fortunes of the court have waxed and waned in symmetry with the political economy of Nigeria.

Unlike other courts in the country, there are no divisions of the Supreme Court and for much of its life, the Supreme Court was an all-comers affair for appeals “on questions of law.”

As the claims on the court’s judicial bandwidth rose and the political economy of the country grew more complex, it was predictable that its docket would increase. The sensible thing to do was to reform the law governing access to the Supreme Court – as well as its doctrine – to keep pace with the increasing demand for the rarefied attention of the court and preserve its authority. This was not done.

Instead, since the onset of the current elective dispensation in 1999, the Supreme Court has become preoccupied with electoral and political disputes. Among the many consequences of this, two are notable. First, the preoccupation of the court (and of the judiciary below it) with political and electoral disputes increasingly, tasks its credibility.

Second, the resulting prioritisation accorded by the court to political cases has created an intolerable backlog to which there is no sensible solution under the current system of judicial administration. The result is that appeals not involving senior politicians or election results vegetate interminably in the bowels of the Supreme Court with no reasonable chance of getting heard.

It is right that this situation should engage the attention of senior lawyers and senior politicians. Manu Soro, the member of the House of Representatives representing Darazo/Ganjuwa Federal Constituency of Bauchi State, has decided to bell the proverbial cat. On World Anti-Corruption Day, December 9, 2024, his bill for Supreme Court reform was gazetted.

The bill proposes – among other things – to authorise the establishment of five regional divisions of the Supreme Court, with the one in Abuja serving as the headquarters. The bill comes complete with a political geography of the proposed divisions: Umuahia (Abia State) to serve the southeast; Bauchi (Bauchi State) for the northeast; Uyo (Akwa Ibom) for the south-south; Lagos (Lagos State) for the southwest; and Kano (Kano State) for the northwest. The declared objective of the bill is “to enhance access to the highest (level of) justice, to minimise the logistical cost of accessing justice and to ensure timely dispensation of matters brought before the apex court.”

Commendable as it is for an initiative, this bill is plainly misguided for many reasons. First, it misconceives and mischaracterises the mission of the Supreme Court. Second, it has no diagnosis for the problems that ail the Supreme Court and, to the extent that it evinces any, offers no reasonable solution to them. Third, the bill offers a misplaced geographical and genealogical solution for a crisis of jurisdictional sclerosis and unimaginative judicial administration that it could not see.

The most charitable anyone can be about this bill is that it is hare-brained. The solution that it offers is guaranteed to make the situation worse, not better. It will also disestablish the court because a “Supreme Court,” that sits in judicial divisions will be neither apex nor supreme.

The crisis of appellate throughput and its consequences, which presently afflicts Nigeria’s Supreme Court is too serious to be banished to post-codes defined by geographies of genealogy. To address the problem, the supply of appeals to the court will need to be constrained significantly. The court’s administration should be overhauled and professionalised, and case management, too needs attention. The one thing the court cannot afford is precisely what this bill advocates – to cannibalise it into a collection of judicial Bantustans.

•A lawyer & teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at chidi.odinkalu@tufts.edu