Nigeria’s renewed attempt to pass a Central Gaming Bill has triggered strong opposition from the Lagos State Government and other key stakeholders, who argue that the legislation threatens the country’s constitutional balance and undermines the core principles of its federal structure. At the forefront of the resistance is the Coalition of Good Governance (CCG), which has denounced the National Assembly’s revived push for the bill as a troubling display of legislative overreach.
The bill, now before the National Assembly, aims to place control of gaming and betting under a single national framework, something many believe encroaches on powers that belong to individual states. Critics say it not only contradicts previous Supreme Court rulings but also risks cutting off vital state revenue and disrupting established local oversight. Meanwhile, gaming operators and everyday players alike, including those searching for the best no deposit bonuses, found online at NoDepositKings.com, are keeping a close eye on the outcome, aware that this decision could redefine how gaming is regulated across Nigeria.
Despite the ruling, the National Assembly has pressed ahead with a similar nationwide framework, prompting Lagos State to begin steps toward contempt proceedings. Lagos Attorney-General Lawal Pedro, SAN, has cautioned that forcing the bill through would amount to defying the Supreme Court and could ignite a far-reaching constitutional crisis.
Unconstitutional
Legal analysts say the National Assembly’s latest attempt to place Nigeria’s gaming sector under federal oversight directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s established position. The court had earlier invalidated the National Lottery Act, ruling that all gaming activities, carried out in casinos or through online and mobile platforms, fall solely within the jurisdiction of state governments.
Supporters of the Central Gaming Bill argue that a new federal framework is needed because the earlier law did not adequately address online and remote gambling. But industry regulators dispute that claim, noting that the repealed legislation already covered digital wagering. They point out that the Supreme Court’s ruling did not separate physical gaming from online participation, signalling that the decision applies uniformly across the entire industry.
Analysts further caution that the bill risks dismantling a long-standing constitutional structure in which states regulate lotteries and gaming independently. Under this model, state governments manage licensing, compliance, revenue collection, and enforcement in line with their economic priorities and community needs. This flexibility has allowed states to supervise operators, allocate gaming revenue to local development programs, and implement consumer protections tailored to their populations.
A federal takeover, they warn, would disrupt this arrangement by creating overlapping mandates and conflicting regulatory systems. It could also pave the way for renewed legal battles between state governments and Abuja, reviving constitutional disputes that the Supreme Court had already resolved.
There are concerns that the proposed Central Gaming Bill could enable gambling operations to expand into states where local customs or religious beliefs traditionally forbid such activities. Critics argue that, if enacted, the law would grant operators the ability to establish gaming businesses nationwide, potentially sparking social friction and community opposition in regions that have historically resisted gambling.
Constitutional Change Required
The National Assembly has only one legitimate route to claim authority over online or remote gaming, changing the constitution. Anything less, legal analysts warn, will not survive a court challenge. Their position is rooted in the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Attorney General of Lagos State & Others v. Attorney General of the Federation & Others. In that landmark decision, the court ruled that lotteries and gaming are not listed in either the Exclusive Legislative List or the Concurrent List of the 1999 Constitution. Instead, they fall under “residual matters,” meaning they are the sole responsibility of state governments. The constitution also makes no special provision for online gaming, leaving digital platforms under state control as well.
Due to this, analysts argue the National Assembly lacks constitutional authority to establish a nationwide gaming regulator or enforce federal oversight through ordinary legislation. If lawmakers genuinely want a central system, they would first need to amend the constitution to move gaming, both physical and online, into the Exclusive Legislative List.
Without such an amendment, observers say the proposed Central Gaming Bill stands on shaky ground. Should it pass, they predict the courts would likely strike it down, just as they did with the former National Lottery Act.