Lagos warns NASS against central gaming bill, cites Supreme Court violation

The Lagos State Government has cautioned the National Assembly against moving forward with the proposed Central Gaming Bill, describing it as unconstitutional and a violation of a subsisting Supreme Court judgment.

The state’s Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Lawal Pedro (SAN), issued the warning during a press briefing in Lagos, stating that the Bill—currently before the Senate after passage by the House of Representatives—amounts to legislative overreach and could trigger a constitutional crisis.

Pedro explained that the Bill seeks to centralize the regulation of all forms of online and remote gaming nationwide, a move that directly contradicts the Supreme Court judgment of October 13, 2024, delivered in a case filed by Lagos and 22 other states against the Attorney-General of the Federation.

According to him, the apex court had ruled unequivocally that gaming, lotteries, and betting fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of state governments, except in the Federal Capital Territory.

“The Supreme Court has declared that only states have the constitutional authority to regulate gaming, betting, and lotteries,” Pedro said. “The National Assembly lacks the competence to legislate on these matters for the entire country.”

He further noted that the court granted a perpetual injunction restraining the Federal Government and its agencies from enforcing the National Lottery Act or any similar law within any state’s territory.

Pedro warned that passing the Central Gaming Bill would defy this ruling, undermine the Constitution, and erode Nigeria’s federal structure.

“Any attempt to legislate on a matter already settled by the Supreme Court is not only unconstitutional but also an invitation to constitutional disorder,” he cautioned.

Responding to claims by some lawmakers that online or remote gaming should fall under federal jurisdiction due to its cross-border nature, Pedro argued that technology does not alter constitutional boundaries.

“Online does not mean federal,” he said. “If that logic were true, then the United Nations should regulate all online activities globally. The mode of operation—whether physical or virtual—does not change the fact that gaming remains a residual matter for the states.”

He also warned that the Bill could allow gambling operations in states where such practices are culturally or religiously prohibited, potentially causing social unrest.

“If passed, the Bill will enable operators to run gaming businesses even in states where gambling is forbidden by religion or tradition, which could lead to social and moral conflicts,” Pedro said.

The Attorney-General described the National Assembly’s move as inconsistent with its ongoing efforts to promote devolution of powers to states.

“It would be contradictory for the same National Assembly that is advocating devolution of powers to now attempt to reclaim powers that the Supreme Court has already affirmed belong to the states,” he added.

Pedro reaffirmed that Lagos and the 22 other states that jointly filed the earlier suit remain united in defending the integrity of the Supreme Court’s ruling and Nigeria’s federal structure.

“This issue transcends Lagos,” he said. “It is about safeguarding the rule of law, upholding the authority of the Supreme Court, and protecting the federal balance guaranteed by our Constitution.”

He urged the National Assembly to withdraw the Central Gaming Bill in the interest of constitutional order and national stability.

“The rule of law is the soul of democracy,” Pedro concluded. “Our democracy can only thrive when we respect the Constitution and the finality of Supreme Court decisions.”