In the past two months, two legislative proposals have emerged at the National Assembly seeking to restore federal regulation over Nigeria’s gaming industry. The first is the Central Gaming Bill, which passed its second reading in the House of Representatives on February 13. The second is the National eGaming Bill 2025, a separate initiative aimed at carving out a federal framework specifically for online and electronic gaming. Though different in structure and emphasis, both bills are united by a common objective: to reassert federal control over gaming in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision that struck down the National Lottery Act and reaffirmed that gaming regulation falls within state jurisdiction. However, a closer examination reveals that both legislative proposals misunderstand the Supreme Court’s clear intent, especially by wrongly assuming that the use of digital technology in gaming changes the constitutional boundaries of legislative authority between the federal and state governments.
Given that this issue is not only about gaming law but also one of technology law and policy, areas central to our policy advocacy over the years, we have undertaken to examine the fundamental flaws in the two gaming bills currently pending before the National Assembly. We will assess their implications against state-led gaming regulation as clarified by the Supreme Court and outline a legally sound framework for federal involvement in gaming. We will also explore how federal authorities in other jurisdictions navigate these challenges without encroaching on the powers of states.
Before delving into these issues, we would briefly review a recurring trend in Nigeria’s digital economy that is concerning.
Has Tech Policy Coordination Failed in Nigeria? On March 18, the Senate passed a bill for second reading seeking to amend the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023, to mandate social media companies to establish physical offices in Nigeria. The thinking at the Senate appears to be that Nigeria’s data protection regulator would do a far better job safeguarding citizens’ data if these companies were physically present in the country. Nothing could be further from the truth. Local offices of tech giants do not manage global operations, and establishing one in Nigeria would not, in any real sense, grant the regulator access to data infrastructure or the platform algorithms any more than is currently possible. Moreover, the decision to establish a physical presence is a business decision, driven by operational priorities, financial considerations, and market viability, not a regulatory requirement imposed by law. Countries with thriving digital economies do not mandate local presence. Instead, they focus on creating enabling environments that attract voluntary local establishment. By opting for compulsory mandates over strategic engagement, the Nigerian Senate demonstrates a limited understanding of how to legislate effectively for the digital economy.
What we are witnessing, not just in this case but across sectors, from data protection to e-commerce, cryptocurrency, cybersecurity, and now gaming, is a failure of tech policy coordination. Nigeria’s tech policy leadership seems to have abandoned its critical responsibility in securing the alignment of sectoral regulation with national digital transformation goals. In the resulting vacuum, everything becomes fair game to sector-specific regulators, who – acting on narrow interests, are enacting fragmented, revenue-driven policies that often conflict with broader digital policy objectives. The federal gaming bills are only the latest manifestation of this distortion. Without strong policy coordination, regulators will continue to misinterpret technology’s role in market services regulation, using it as a tool to justify any action. To stem this tide, tech policy leadership must take responsibility for ensuring that regulators, whether in gaming or other sectors – and indeed the National Assembly, understand that technology is an enabler of market services, not a new basis for regulatory creativity. Without a structured, cross-sectoral implementation of our digital economy policy, Nigeria’s regulatory inconsistencies will continue to stifle innovation, create legal uncertainty, and repel the very investments these policies claim to attract. The fate of the gaming industry under the proposed federal bills is just one more example of this deeper, systemic failure.
Online Gaming is Gaming – Technology is Just a Tool: The two federal gaming bills are built on the false premise that online gaming is fundamentally different from traditional gaming simply because it relies on technology. This assumption is not only incorrect but dangerously misleading.
Technology services are regulated as distinct services, focusing on infrastructure, platforms, software, applications, and networks that enable other industries or markets. Market services, on the other hand, remain the domain of the specific market regulators. The mere fact that an industry leverages technology does not transform the underlying service in that market into a technology service for regulatory purposes. Thus, regardless of the extent to which technology is integrated into service delivery in a sector, regulation remains the responsibility of the market regulator (within the level of government) constitutionally vested with the authority over that sector. For example, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) regulates online banking and e-payments as financial services, not as technology services. Similarly, online gaming remains a gaming service and must be regulated by states, as declared by the Supreme Court. Any attempt to legislate gaming under the guise of technology, because telecommunication or IT falls under the federal exclusive legislative list, is not just a dangerous overreach but an attempt at gaming the Constitution itself.
Two Federal Bills – Same Fundamental Flaws: The two parallel legislative attempts to reintroduce federal oversight into Nigeria’s gaming industry, though differing in operational design, pursue the same constitutional ambition by misconstruing the role of technology in the gaming ecosystem. Both bills treat gaming as a technology service rather than a market service merely enabled by digital tools; falsely assuming that because telecommunication is under federal jurisdiction, the use of tech in gaming subjects the industry to federal regulation. That said, the legislative proposals are not entirely without merit. They incorporate several provisions that reflect global best practices, including robust anti-money laundering (AML) frameworks, Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements, real-time transaction monitoring, and financial reporting obligations, mirroring standards found in the EU’s Fifth AML Directive and the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority regulations. Their consumer protection clauses, such as self-exclusion tools, spending caps, and age verification, mirror responsible gaming frameworks in jurisdictions like the UK and Australia. The bills also attempt to address modern challenges by proposing regulations for loot boxes, in-game purchases, algorithmic transparency, and introducing structured taxation for foreign gaming operators participating in Nigeria’s digital economy. However, these commendable elements are undermined by the flawed approach of consolidating all these functions within a single, all-powerful federal gaming authority. As we shall see below, a more constitutionally sound and operationally efficient strategy would be to embed these regulatory goals within the existing mandates of agencies already responsible for AML, cybersecurity, taxation, and data protection, thereby extending their jurisdiction to cover gaming-specific risks.
A Billion-Dollar Industry Caught in Regulatory Flux: Before the Supreme Court’s ruling, Nigeria’s gaming industry was already entangled in regulatory uncertainty. Operators who obtained federal gaming licenses, trusting their national validity, were required to secure state licenses, leading to a fragmented and costly compliance burden. The Supreme Court’s ruling was expected to resolve this chaos, providing clarity and allowing operators to transition to a more structured regulatory framework. Instead, the Central Gaming Bill and National eGaming Bill approaches will deepen these uncertainties, disrupting what should have been a move toward regulatory stability.
According to Association of Nigerian Bookmakers (ANB), the Nigeria’s gaming industry generates between ₦500 billion and ₦600 billion annually, with over 60 million Nigerians participating daily. In 2023 alone, it contributed approximately ₦200 billion in direct revenue, benefiting both federal and state authorities through taxation and licensing fees. Yet, despite this economic potential, the industry remains trapped in outdated regulatory models, unable to explore opportunities in international markets. With the right regulatory approach, Nigeria’s gaming industry could evolve into a regional and global player, attracting foreign investment and expanding revenue streams. Policymakers must prioritize regulatory innovation over jurisdictional battles by adopting the right legislative approach to ensure that gaming remains a driver of economic growth rather than a casualty of conflicting constitutional interpretation and vested political interests.
NLRC Inertia in the Face of State Gaming Coalitions: After the Supreme Court’s ruling, the National Lottery Regulatory Commission (NLRC) was expected to step up and clarify the regulatory landscape, but instead, it remained silent, fading into the background. That changed recently when it issued a letter to the Lottery Operators Forum, a move that offered little clarity and instead sparked more confusion. The letter raised more questions than answers, promising regulatory savings and license revisions for federal lottery licensees without referencing any new law from the National Assembly or Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) regulation that officially transfers oversight to the FCTA as the Supreme Court’s decision implied.
While the Supreme Court did not authorize federal oversight in areas such as cross-border and international gaming, it also did not prohibit the federal government from addressing those areas through its existing regulatory frameworks. What is clear is that states cannot regulate matters that occur beyond their borders or engage in international coordination, as those powers reside exclusively with the federal government under Nigeria’s federal structure. Therefore, while the Court limited the National Assembly’s competence in gaming to the FCT, it left unresolved – but did not foreclose, the question of federal responsibility for cross-border and international aspects of gaming. It is within this interpretative gap that a constitutionally grounded federal role can be defined.
Meanwhile, states have wasted no time asserting their regulatory authority, filling the vacuum left by federal inertia. Lagos State Lotteries and Gaming Authority has taken the lead, while other states are enacting independent gaming laws and exploring collaborative initiatives to strengthen their regulatory structures. This momentum is reflected in the launch of the Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN), a voluntary alliance of state gaming authorities aimed at standardizing best practices, facilitating inter-state cooperation, and bolstering investor confidence. Similar to the Multi-State Lottery Association (MUSL) in the United States, the FSGRN is eager to provide a structured, state-led gaming ecosystem, free from federal intervention. Even global stakeholders such as Google have acknowledged this shift, adjusting their gambling advertisement policies to align with the rise of state-led gaming oversight in Nigeria.
However, while states have the constitutional authority to regulate gaming within their borders, they must be careful not to encroach on areas where federal jurisdiction is clearly established. The more they coordinate across state lines, such as through harmonized licensing or enforcement compacts, the greater the risk of infringing on areas where the federal government holds exclusive powers, including cross-border and international dimensions of gaming.
Can Federal Gaming Powers Be Exercised Without Overreach? Outside of lottery and gaming regulations in the FCT, federal authority can be asserted in matters where constitutional and legislative mandates clearly exist, such as anti-money laundering (AML), cybersecurity, data protection, consumer protection, and taxation. These are areas firmly within the federal legislative domain and are supported by existing laws and institutions, such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU), Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC), and the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA). These institutions can extend their operations to address gaming-related risks without requiring a wholesale re-establishment of a new regulatory body.
Moreover, in every federal system where gaming is largely state-controlled, such as the United States, Australia, and Germany, there remains a clearly defined federal role in cross-border oversight and international gaming protocols. This is not because gaming itself is federally regulated, but because issues like AML, digital taxation, data governance, and international coordination require national enforcement.
To that extent, while the Supreme Court did not explicitly assign cross-border and international gaming oversight to the federal government, it certainly did not assign them to the states either. And given that no state can exercise sovereignty beyond its territorial borders or engage in international diplomacy, it falls to the federal government to create a framework that addresses these transboundary concerns without usurping the primary regulatory jurisdiction of states over local gaming operations.
A constitutionally compliant federal framework must therefore focus on empowering and reforming existing institutions to monitor and manage cross-border transactions, illicit financial flows, online betting platforms targeting Nigerians from abroad, and international syndicates involved in fraudulent or exploitative gaming schemes. Nigeria cannot afford a vacuum in these areas.
Nobody Needs a Super Federal Gaming Authority: A troubling feature shared by both federal gaming bills is the proposal to create an all-powerful federal gaming authority populated with representatives from existing regulatory bodies, such as the EFCC, NFIU, NDPC, ONSA, and relevant ministries. This is often framed as a way to consolidate cross-sectoral expertise and foster regulatory cohesion. However, it is a fundamentally flawed and unsustainable model. Placing these agencies on the board of a gaming authority does not transfer their regulatory powers, technical capacity, or specialized competence. It merely creates an illusion of integration, while in reality distracting those agencies from their primary mandates. It also allows lawmakers to sidestep the harder but more effective route of reforming and extending the existing mandates of these agencies to cover gaming-specific risks, such as financial crime, data privacy, cybersecurity, and digital taxation, within their current regulatory frameworks.
Better model has been adopted in other federal jurisdictions. In the United States, agencies like FinCEN, the DOJ, and the FTC each retain their independence while collaborating on gaming-related enforcement. In Australia, AUSTRAC supervises gaming financial compliance, but does not assume control of gaming regulation. The European Union similarly incorporates gaming-related financial transactions into broader frameworks like the 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5AMLD), without the need to create new gaming-specific enforcement agencies.
Nigeria should follow suit. A lean federal gaming coordinating office, if one is deemed necessary at all, should be tasked solely with facilitating cooperation across existing institutions and aligning Nigeria’s gaming governance with international regulatory best practice. This model preserves institutional specialization, avoids inefficient duplication, and ensures that Nigeria builds a constitutionally sound, innovation-ready framework for a globally integrated gaming industry.
Seni Adio SAN vs the FSGRN – Is Regulatory Harmony Possible? As this article was being finalized, an opinion piece by Seni Adio, SAN, was published in ThisDay Newspaper, offering a different perspective on federal oversight of gaming. He argues that federal gaming regulation should be flexible and reformist in order to prevent constitutional redundancy. He further suggests that the integration of digital technologies into the gaming ecosystem justifies a broader interpretation of the federal government’s legislative competence. While this view is innovative and grounded in progressive legal thinking, it is a strenuous position to sustain. The Supreme Court’s ruling was unequivocal in reaffirming that gaming, regardless of its digital transformation, falls within state legislative competence. As demonstrated throughout this article, the use of technology in gaming neither diminishes the states’ constitutional authority nor expands that of the federal government. The Learned Senior Advocate’s view invites a creative reading of the Constitution, one that leaves little room for the legal predictability that the gaming industry needs and struggles to meet the interpretive consistency that constitutional law demands.
In response, the Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN) issued a rebuttal, restating the Supreme Court’s decision and reinforcing the authority of states to regulate gaming within their territories. Their advocacy is consistent with the Court’s reaffirmation of state jurisdiction. However, as this article has shown, the Court did not entirely oust federal involvement in gaming. While it ruled definitively against the National Lottery Act’s overreach, it did not address, let alone prohibit, federal legislative authority in areas like anti-money laundering, cybersecurity, financial crimes, consumer protection, as those issues are captured in cross-border or international gaming. These remain within federal competence under existing constitutional and statutory regimes. As state regulators intensify their collaboration through harmonized licensing regimes or multi-state platforms, they must remain cautious not to stray into areas where federal oversight is necessary or constitutionally required.
A balanced regulatory regime, one that upholds state control over domestic gaming operations but reinforces federal authority over transnational and systemic risk areas, will serve the country best. Such a harmonized framework can guarantee legal clarity, ensure compliance with international standards, and help position Nigeria as a stable, investment-ready gaming jurisdiction.
Final Thought: A New Federal Vision for Gaming Regulation: Instead of using the Supreme Court ruling as a pretext for unconstitutional overreach, the federal government should see it as an opportunity to modernize and elevate its role in gaming oversight. Nigeria must adopt a cooperative regulatory enforcement model, ensuring that existing agencies retain their jurisdiction over gaming-related issues within their respective mandates while collaborating on oversight. Countries such as the U.S., Germany, and Australia provide clear models of how federal oversight should be exercised without interfering with state-led gaming regulation.
By aligning with global best practices, Nigeria can develop a robust, constitutionally sound gaming industry, without creating confusion and legal battles over federal overreach. A more balanced, legally sound approach will create the regulatory stability needed to ensure that gaming serves as a pillar of economic growth rather than a political battleground.
Basil Udotai Esq. is an Abuja-based Tech Policy Attorney and Founding Partner of Johnson & Wilner LLP, a Business & Tech Law Practice. He began his career in gaming law as a Regulatory Analyst at the District of Columbia Lottery Board in Washington, DC. He now advocates fundamental policy reforms to advance Nigeria’s digital economy and can be reached at [email protected]
Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date
Open In Whatsapp
