Lagos AG Warns National Assembly Against Central Gaming Bill, Cites Supreme Court Ruling
The Lagos State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Lawal Pedro, SAN, has issued a strong caution to the National Assembly against enacting the proposed Central Gaming Bill, labeling it as unconstitutional and a direct violation of a subsisting Supreme Court judgment.
Speaking to journalists on Wednesday, the Attorney General described the bill—which aims to centralize the regulation of all forms of online and remote gaming across Nigeria—as a “voyage of unconstitutionality” that could trigger a constitutional crisis if passed into law.
Pedro reminded the lawmakers that the Supreme Court had previously settled the jurisdictional dispute in the 2024 ruling on Suit No. SC/1/2008 (Attorney General of Lagos State & 22 Others v. Attorney General of the Federation and Others).
In that landmark judgment, the apex court ruled that lotteries, betting, gaming, and other games of chance are “residual matters” that fall within the exclusive legislative competence of state governments, not the Federal Government (except in the FCT).
The Attorney General stressed that the Supreme Court’s decision permanently restrained the Federal Government and its agencies from regulating gaming and lotteries within the states and had also nullified the previous National Lottery Act of 2005 in its entirety.
He argued that any attempt to reenact similar provisions through the new Central Gaming Bill is equivalent to “legislating in defiance of a binding Supreme Court decision.”
Responding to arguments that the bill only targets “online” gaming, Pedro refuted the claim that the digital nature of the transactions automatically confers federal jurisdiction.
He argued that whether a ticket is sold physically or through a mobile app, it remains a game of chance within the state’s constitutional jurisdiction.
The Attorney General warned that passing the bill would undermine Nigeria’s federal structure and compel states, including Lagos and the 22 co-plaintiff states, to return to the Supreme Court to defend their constitutional rights. He concluded by urging the Senate to reject the concurrence with the Bill “in the interest of federalism, constitutionalism, and national stability,” emphasizing that the strength of Nigeria’s democracy lies in the collective respect for the rule of law.
