THE CENTRAL GAMING BILL
President Tinubu’s decision to decline assent to the bill is in order, contends BASHIR A. ARE
Nigeria has crossed an important constitutional threshold. With President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, formally declining assent to the Central Gaming Bill, the country has moved decisively from legislative uncertainty into a phase of constitutional clarity. What remains is not debate, but responsibility—to explain the constitutional basis of that decision, educate the public, and guide future legislation in an era where digital transformation is too often mistaken for a jurisdictional mandate.
This issue is not merely about gaming. It is about preserving Nigeria’s federal balance in the digital age. President Tinubu’s decision reflects a continuity of constitutional vision traceable to 2004, when, as Governor of Lagos State, he established the Lagos State Lotteries Board. That framework pioneered a modern approach to gaming regulation—one that recognised gaming as a socially sensitive economic activity whose externalities must be mitigated. Levies from gaming operators were deliberately channelled into education, healthcare, youth development, sports, public enlightenment, and responsible gaming advocacy as an intervention trust fund. Regulation was designed not only for revenue extraction but primarily for social balance and community reinvestment.
This philosophy reflects the core principles of cooperative federalism. Cooperative federalism is not a struggle for dominance between levels of government, nor is it a fragmentation of authority. It is a constitutional partnership—where powers are clearly allocated, respected, and exercised with restraint, while governments collaborate voluntarily to achieve national coherence. It rejects coercive centralisation and destructive fragmentation alike. Instead, it promotes collaboration without domination, harmonisation without subjugation, and unity in diversity.
In the digital age, cooperative federalism offers a disciplined response to technological change. Technology may alter delivery channels, but it does not alter constitutional competence. Digital platforms should enhance regulatory cooperation, not serve as excuses for jurisdictional displacement.
Gaming regulation is a classic case for cooperative federalism. While online platforms transcend geography, the social consequences of gaming—addiction, consumer harm, youth exposure, and community impact—remain profoundly local. States are best positioned to regulate these effects, while cooperating nationally on standards, data sharing, and enforcement. Nigeria’s Constitution anticipates this model. Lotteries, betting, and gaming appear on neither the Exclusive nor Concurrent Legislative Lists. By operation of Section 4(7) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), they are residual matters reserved exclusively for the states.
This position was conclusively affirmed by the Supreme Court of Nigeria in November 2024. The Court held unequivocally that the National Assembly lacks legislative competence over gaming and lotteries. Judicial authority was clear: cooperation is permissible; constitutional overreach is not.
Against this backdrop, the President’s pronouncement reflects a considered political judgment exercised in faithful obedience to the Constitution. It demonstrates statesmanship rooted in respect for constitutional limits. The refusal to assent was therefore not an act of policy preference, but a necessary affirmation of constitutional order and judicial finality.
The claims that online platforms confer federal jurisdiction are legally flawed. Jurisdiction flows from constitutional authority, not from technology. Consider a case initiated at the Kano State High Court, conducted entirely online. The virtual nature of the proceedings does not strip the court of its constitutional jurisdiction, nor does it transform it into a federal court matter. The court’s jurisdiction is determined by the Constitution, not by the platform used to conduct its business. Globally, federations have embraced cooperative solutions. In the United States, Canada, Germany, India, Australia, Switzerland, and South Africa, gaming regulation remains subnational, coordinated through inter-state or interprovincial frameworks rather than federal takeover.
To further inform public understanding and guide sound legislative reasoning, it is useful to describe—more concretely—how leading federations structure subnational cooperation in gaming regulation, particularly in Switzerland, the United States, Germany, and Canada.
Switzerland: GESPA and the Intercantonal Agreement on Gambling (GSK)
Switzerland is one of the clearest examples of cooperative federalism in action. The Swiss state is a federation of 26 cantons, and cantonal autonomy is a constitutional cornerstone. Because gambling has significant social implications—public order, youth protection, addiction prevention, and community welfare—Switzerland has long treated it as an area where local sensitivity matters.
The cantons cooperate through an inter-cantonal legal instrument commonly referenced as the Intercantonal Agreement on Gambling (GSK). Switzerland did not respond to crossborder gaming by transferring jurisdiction to the federal level. Instead, it created a cooperative mechanism preserving cantonal sovereignty.
In the United States, gambling and lottery regulation is overwhelmingly state-based. States determine licensing, taxation, and enforcement. The Multi-State Lottery Association (MUSL) enables cooperation without stripping states of authority.
Germany: Länder Cooperation
Germany relies on state-to-state coordination through interstate treaties. Digitalisation drives harmonisation, not federal takeover.
Canada: Provincial Authority
Gaming regulation in Canada is largely provincial. The Interprovincial Lottery Corporation (ILC) enables collaboration while preserving provincial autonomy.
Nigeria has already internalised this approach through the Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN). The FSGRN enables reciprocity licensing, harmonised standards, shared compliance intelligence, and coordinated responsible gaming initiatives—without displacing state authority.
The proposed Remote Gaming Licence under the rejected Central Gaming Bill posed a structural risk. It would have allowed offshore operators to bypass state regulation, undermining jobs, weakening consumer protection, and diverting social mitigation revenues away from communities.
Gaming operators already contribute through Corporate Income Tax, Education Tax, ITF levies, Police Trust Fund contributions, NITDA levies, Capital Gains Tax, and related obligations. State gaming levies are purpose-built social instruments. This legislative episode matters beyond gaming. It establishes how Nigeria will govern digital transformation across sectors—fintech, education, healthcare, transport, and the creative economy.
Ultimately, President Tinubu’s decision to decline assent to the Central Gaming Bill stands as a reaffirmation of cooperative federalism as Nigeria’s governing philosophy in an increasingly digital age. It reflects a deliberate choice to uphold constitutional boundaries, respect judicial authority, and preserve the carefully balanced allocation of powers that underpins Nigeria’s federal structure. While political in form, the decision was anchored in constitutional obedience and demonstrates statesmanship guided by fidelity to the rule of law.
This moment carries significance far beyond the gaming sector. It clarifies an essential principle for Nigeria’s digital future: technology may reshape markets, delivery channels, and consumer behaviour, but it cannot and must not be allowed to rewrite constitutional competence. Online platforms do not dissolve federal boundaries, nor do they convert residual matters into federal subjects by virtue of scale or reach. Where digital activity produces local social consequences—as gaming undeniably does—regulation must remain closest to the communities affected, even as governments collaborate nationally to promote coherence, integrity, and shared standards.
Are is the Chief Executive Officer of the Lagos State Lotteries and Gaming Authority and Chairman of the Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN)
