From Lanre Gbajabiamila to Tunji Bello: How Lagos Roots Keep Reappearing in Nigeria’s Gaming Wars

Nseobong Okon-Ekong posits that it may be simplistic to conclude from these parallels alone that either official intended to undermine Lagos State or embarrass President Bola Tinubu. Yet the political optics are difficult to ignore. Both controversies involve federal officials with substantial Lagos backgrounds

Sixteen years of litigation culminated in a landmark Supreme Court judgment on lottery regulation. Yet, barely two years later, fresh regulatory tensions have revived questions about federal authority, executive restraint and the Tinubu administration’s commitment to constitutional federalism.

At the heart of Nigeria’s gaming wars is a fundamental question: can the Federal Government regulate lottery and games of chance across the states when the Constitution reserves those powers to the states?

On November 22, 2024, the Supreme Court answered that question in Attorney-General of Lagos State and Others v. Attorney-General of the Federation and Others, Suit No. SC/1/2008. The apex court nullified the National Lottery Act 2005, holding that the National Assembly lacked the constitutional authority to legislate on lottery and games of chance within the states.

Yet the judgment has not ended the struggle over regulatory jurisdiction. Instead, the controversy has resurfaced through legislative and administrative initiatives, bringing two federal officials with substantial Lagos backgrounds into the spotlight: Lanre Gbajabiamila, former Director-General of the now-defunct National Lottery Regulatory Commission (NLRC), and Tunji Bello, Executive Vice-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC). Their cases are different, but the political optics are striking.

The Gbajabiamila chapter

The 16-year legal battle predates the President Bola Tinubu administration. Lagos State instituted the case in 2008 against the Federal Government and the National Assembly, arguing that lottery and games of chance fell within the residual legislative powers of the states. Other states subsequently joined the proceedings.

Gbajabiamila, who previously served in Lagos’s lottery administration before becoming a federal appointee, later headed the NLRC, the institution at the centre of the federal regulatory framework challenged by the states. His earlier service in Lagos adds an intriguing dimension to the dispute. The man who subsequently became associated with federal lottery regulation had roots in the state whose constitutional position the Federal Government vigorously contested.

Gbajabiamila is also the brother of Femi Gbajabiamila, the president’s Chief of Staff. That connection adds a political dimension to the controversy, although it does not establish that the Chief of Staff influenced the federal government’s position.

The Supreme Court’s November 2024 judgment ultimately settled the central constitutional question against the federal framework. But the expectation that the ruling would end the controversy proved short-lived.

A second attempt at federal control?

In December 2025, the National Assembly passed the Central Gaming Bill, seeking to establish a federal framework for regulating lottery and gaming across the states and the Federal Capital Territory. The proposed legislation revived concerns that the constitutional question already decided by the Supreme Court was being reopened through the legislative process. This could be likened to an affliction trying to rise a second time.

Lagos challenged the move, warning that the bill would conflict with the apex court’s judgment. Tinubu eventually declined to assent, reportedly affirming his commitment to constitutional limits with the declaration: “I am a constitutional democrat.”

His decision prevented the bill from becoming law and offered reassurance to states that had fought for years to establish their regulatory autonomy.

But the episode raised a troubling question: why would the National Assembly pursue legislation that state governments and legal practitioners considered inconsistent with a recent Supreme Court judgment?

More disturbing was the apparent silence of federal legislators from Lagos and other states that had challenged federal control of lottery. Rather than visibly defend the constitutional position of their states, they appeared to acquiesce as their colleagues hurried the bill through the legislative process. The speed of the exercise and the silence of those expected to defend state jurisdiction were pregnant with meaning.

There have also been allegations that substantial sums of money changed hands in connection with the legislative push. Such claims require credible evidence and should not be presented as established fact without supporting documentation or an official investigation. The constitutional implications of the bill, however, remain a matter of public record.

Bello and new regulatory flashpoint

Less than a year after the Central Gaming Bill controversy, the dispute has resurfaced through the FCCPC’s proposed Sales Promotion (Amended) Regulations, 2026.

Bello’s background makes the development particularly noteworthy. Before his federal appointment, he held several senior positions in Lagos, including Commissioner for the Environment and Water Resources and Secretary to the State Government.

The present controversy concerns how far the FCCPC can go in regulating promotional activities involving lotteries, prize draws and other games of chance under its consumer-protection mandate. On September 30, 2026, the FCCPC published a draft of its amended sales promotion regulations for public consultation. The Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN) subsequently objected to provisions it believes could confer licensing, approval and supervisory powers on the FCCPC over activities constitutionally reserved for state gaming authorities.

The document remains a draft, and its publication does not establish that the FCCPC has implemented a new nationwide lottery licensing regime. Nevertheless, the dispute raises a familiar question: where does legitimate consumer-protection oversight end and the regulation of lottery and gaming begin?

The FCCPC has a statutory mandate to protect consumers and promote fair competition. States, following the Supreme Court’s judgment, have a constitutional basis for regulating lottery and games of chance within their jurisdictions. The FSGRN argues that the commission cannot use sales promotion regulations to assume powers that the Supreme Court has ruled fall outside the legislative competence of the National Assembly.

The legal distinction is important. Not every promotional campaign constitutes a lottery, just as not every activity labelled a sales promotion is necessarily outside gaming regulation. The substance of the activity and the relevant laws must determine which authority has jurisdiction.

If the draft regulations ultimately confer powers that conflict with the constitutional position established by the Supreme Court, another round of litigation may follow.

A recurring problem for Tinubu

It may be simplistic to conclude from these parallels alone that either official intended to undermine Lagos or embarrass Tinubu. Public officials have statutory responsibilities, and their actions must be assessed on their legal merits. Yet the political optics are difficult to ignore. Both controversies involve federal officials with substantial Lagos backgrounds, and both have revived disputes over the limits of federal authority.

In Gbajabiamila’s case, the conflict culminated in a Supreme Court judgment against the federal lottery framework. The Central Gaming Bill subsequently sought to establish a new nationwide regime, only for Tinubu to withhold his assent. Now, under Bello’s leadership of the FCCPC, a proposed regulatory instrument has reopened the debate through the lens of consumer protection.

The recurring pattern raises questions about institutional consistency. If the president has acknowledged the constitutional limits of federal legislative authority, why do federal initiatives that state regulators consider contrary to those limits continue to emerge?

The point is not that the two officials necessarily acted with the same intentions. It is that their respective controversies expose the continuing difficulty of translating a judicial pronouncement into consistent government policy.

Beyond personalities

For Nigeria’s gaming industry, the stakes extend beyond personalities and political affiliations. Regulatory uncertainty complicates licensing, increases compliance costs and exposes operators to conflicting directives. Businesses and consumers need clarity about which authority is empowered to regulate particular activities and which rules apply.

States have a legitimate interest in enforcing their laws, protecting consumers and collecting revenue due to them. The Federal Government also has valid responsibilities in consumer protection and competition policy. The challenge is to exercise those powers without encroaching on constitutional responsibilities assigned elsewhere.

The Supreme Court’s November 2024 judgment provides the starting point. Although it does not automatically settle every question involving consumer protection, telecommunications, interstate commerce or promotional campaigns, it establishes a constitutional boundary that subsequent legislation and regulations must respect.

For Tinubu, the challenge is one of consistency: constitutional principles defended by the president must also guide the agencies and institutions operating under his administration. The lesson of the 16-year litigation is clear. Constitutional disputes cannot be settled permanently through administrative persistence or legislative manoeuvring. Where the courts have delivered a binding judgment, subsequent government action must be measured against it.

From the NLRC controversy to the Central Gaming Bill and now the FCCPC’s proposed regulations, the same fundamental question persists: will federal institutions respect the constitutional limits of their authority?

The answer will determine whether the latest dispute ends in regulatory compromise or another courtroom confrontation.