ON November 22, 2024, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment that significantly altered the regulatory landscape of the lottery and gaming industry in the country.. 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 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 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 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.
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 operatorsmay 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 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 such as Gamble Alert, which leads the campaign for safer gambling and protection and offers support for those put in harm’s way by gambling.
Gamble Alert, Nigeria’s leading advocate for safer gambling, is poised to play a crucial role in addressing these challenges. With states like Lagos, Oyo, and Ekiti already committed to responsible gambling enforcement, Gamble Alert’s partnerships with regulators, operators and other relevant stakeholders are more critical than ever. The organization’s initiatives—ranging from public awareness campaigns to support programs—are vital in promoting safer gambling practices and protecting vulnerable groups. As states develop their regulatory frameworks, Gamble Alert can lead efforts to harmonize responsible gambling measures across jurisdictions.
To conclude, 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.
and then