President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has taken a firm position on the controversial Central Gaming Bill, making it clear that he will not sign it into law. The decision has reignited an important national conversation around constitutional authority, federalism, and how Nigeria should regulate its fast-growing gaming and lottery sector.
The Central Gaming Bill emerged as an attempt to reform Nigeria’s gaming laws, particularly in response to the rapid expansion of online betting, digital lotteries, and remote gaming platforms. Supporters of the bill argue that the existing regulatory framework is outdated and fragmented, creating uncertainty for operators and regulators alike.
At its core, the bill seeks to repeal the National Lottery Act and replace it with a centralised regulatory structure. It proposes the establishment of a federal gaming authority with powers to license, regulate, and oversee gaming activities across the country, particularly those conducted online or across state boundaries. The intention, according to its sponsors, is to create uniform standards for licensing, compliance, consumer protection, and revenue collection in an industry that has increasingly become digital and borderless.
Legislatively, the bill has travelled far. It was debated and passed by both chambers of the National Assembly, including approval by the Senate after its third reading. Ordinarily, this would place the bill on the final stretch of the legislative process, awaiting transmission to the President for assent. However, that final step has now become the point at which the bill has stalled.
President Tinubu’s refusal to sign the bill is rooted in constitutional concerns rather than opposition to regulation itself. His position is that lottery and gaming fall within the legislative competence of state governments, not the federal government. Under Nigeria’s constitutional structure, matters not explicitly assigned to the federal government are regarded as residual powers, which belong to the states.
This position aligns closely with a landmark Supreme Court judgment delivered in 2024, which ruled that the National Assembly does not have the authority to legislate on lottery and gaming matters across the federation, except within the Federal Capital Territory. The judgment effectively invalidated the National Lottery Act as it applied to states, reinforcing the principle that gaming regulation is a state matter.
From the President’s perspective, signing the Central Gaming Bill in its current form would amount to endorsing legislation that directly contradicts both the Constitution and a binding Supreme Court ruling. He has reportedly described himself as a constitutional democrat and has urged lawmakers to respect judicial authority rather than attempt to reintroduce federal control over gaming through new legislation.
The decision has been welcomed by several state governments and state gaming regulators, particularly Lagos State, which has been at the forefront of legal challenges against federal involvement in lottery regulation. These stakeholders argue that the Central Gaming Bill is, in substance, a rebranding of the same federal approach that the Supreme Court has already rejected.
For Nigeria’s gaming industry, the President’s stance creates clarity on one hand and uncertainty on the other. It clarifies that, for now, regulation remains primarily a state-level responsibility. At the same time, it leaves unresolved questions around how online and cross-border gaming activities should be coordinated in a digital economy where transactions do not respect state boundaries.
What happens next will likely involve one of three paths: a redrafting of the bill to limit federal involvement strictly to the FCT, a constitutional amendment to explicitly grant federal powers over gaming, or continued reliance on state-based regulation with inter-state coordination mechanisms. Until then, the Central Gaming Bill remains unsigned, and Nigeria’s gaming sector continues to operate within a decentralised regulatory landscape.
Beyond gaming, the episode underscores a broader theme in Nigeria’s governance journey: the tension between centralisation and federalism in regulating fast-evolving digital industries. How this balance is ultimately resolved may set precedents that extend far beyond gaming alone.
