3 days ago
20
Abayomi Nurain Mumuni, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of MorRich Lottery Limited, on Thursday, backed the House of Representatives over the passing of Central Gaming Bill 2025 for a second reading.
He declared that states have no power to regulate online gaming activities in Nigeria.
Mumuni declared while reacting to a recent newspaper publication signed by some representatives of the Federation of State Gaming Regulators (FSGR) in objections to the Central Gaming Bill 2025.
The proposed bill sponsored by the Deputy Speaker of the House, Hon. Benjamin Kalu and six other lawmakers seeks to create a comprehensive and harmonised regulatory framework for the operation of online businesses and remote gaming that transcend state boundaries and extend beyond Nigeria’s borders.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, February 19, a copy received by Daily Independent, the MorRich Lottery Limited boss faulted the objection of the FSGR, stating that it is a well-established fact that the online space of a country is a national domain and not a state-controlled territory.
He added that the Nigerian Constitution, as outlined in the Exclusive Legislative List of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), grants the Federal government exclusive powers over matters relating to telecommunications and the Internet.
He then declared that states lacked the constitutional jurisdiction to regulate
online gaming, as it inherently transcends individual state boundaries.
Mumuni, a renowned security expert, while speaking further, maintained that a closer examination of the Supreme Court’s judgment in AG Lagos & Ors Vs AG Federation & Anor SC/1/2008 reveals a significant gap: the ruling made no pronouncement on the regulation of online and remote gaming.
He then said that the assertion by the FSGR that the proposed bill contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling is therefore factually incorrect.
“Our attention has been drawn to a publication in the Leadership Newspaper of Monday, 17th February 2025, on the above subject matter, and signed by some representatives of the Federation of State Gaming Regulators (FSGR), which contains several misleading assertions regarding the Central Gaming Bill.
“In the interest of public clarity, it is necessary to correct these misrepresentations and provide an accurate perspective on the matter. The primary objective of the Central Gaming Bill is to regulate the online and
remote gaming sectors. It does not seek to control retail and land-based gaming,
which remains within the purview of state regulatory bodies.
“It is a well-established fact that the online space of a country is a national domain and not a state-controlled territory. The Nigerian Constitution, as outlined in the Exclusive Legislative List of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), grants the Federal government exclusive powers over matters relating to telecommunications and the Internet. Consequently, states lack the constitutional jurisdiction to regulate online gaming, as it inherently transcends individual state boundaries.
“A closer examination of the Supreme Court’s judgment in AG Lagos & Ors Vs AG Federation & Anor SC/1/2008 reveals a significant gap: the ruling made no pronouncement on the regulation of online and remote gaming. The assertion by the FSGR that the proposed bill contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling is therefore factually incorrect.
“In its judgment, the Supreme Court explicitly declared: “Having regard to the clear provisions of Section 4(7)(a) and (c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the Lagos State G.overnment and the 2nd – 22nd Plaintiffs’ States have the power, to the exclusion of the 1st and 2nd Defendants, to make laws to regulate and control the operation of lottery within their States.”
The use of the phrase “within their States” is an intentional and precise delineation by the Supreme Court. The ruling does not extend to activities beyond state boundaries. Online and remote gaming, particularly where foreign-based operators offer services accessible to Nigerians, is a matter of federal concern as it traverses Nigeria’s international boundaries. Since the internet is not confined within state borders, regulating online gaming naturally falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
“Therefore, any attempt by State Gaming Regulators to regulate or control gaming or however so-called, online/on the internet is a direct violation of the Constitution, as the online space is within the Exclusive powers of the Federal Government. Alignment with Global Best Practices. The Central Gaming Bill is designed to bring Nigeria’s gaming industry in line with international regulatory standards and best practices. The online gaming sector presents unique challenges, including risks of money laundering, terrorist financing, and financial crimes.
“The absence of a central regulatory framework for online gaming leaves Nigeria exposed to these threats. Other jurisdictions have long recognized the importance of national oversight for online gaming: Malta, the United Kingdom, and Australia have established robust regulatory structures ensuring federal control over the online gaming sector. South Africa operates a dual regulatory model, where provincial authorities oversee land-based gaming, while the national government maintains substantial control over online gaming.
“There also exists a single National Gaming Act, the National Gambling Act, which the provincial authorities are guided by without exception.
“Mexico’s gaming industry is regulated by the Ministry of Interior, through its
Gambling and Raffles Bureau. According to Gambling Regulations, licence
holders with land-based gaming licences must be authorised by the Bureau to
develop, operate and capture bets through the internet, mobile phones or
electronic devices. This again points to Federal/National oversight.
Nigeria must adopt a proactive and strategic approach to online gaming
regulation to protect its economy, consumers, and national security.
“The Federal Government, through the instrumentality of a Federal authority, is better positioned to collaborate with international regulators to combat illegal offshore/remote gaming operations and effectively work towards shutting down illegal operations. In addition, the Federal Government has greater resources which include law enforcement agencies and financial intelligence units with
advanced machinery to generate intelligence reports all geared towards monitoring and enforcing compliance.
“The Role of the National Assembly Contrary to the claims in the FSGR’s publication, the National Assembly has acted well within its constitutional authority in considering the Central Gaming Bill. The Legislative Arm of Government has the right and responsibility to deliberate on matters of national and international interest—which clearly includes the regulation of online gaming.
“A fundamental question must be raised: Can an association created under the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020—a federal law enacted by the National Assembly—dictate or restrict the authority of the National Assembly in considering and passing bills? The answer is clear. Nigeria upholds the principle of Separation of Powers, and the National Assembly retains full autonomy in lawmaking where national interests demand it.
“The Central Gaming Bill is not an overreach of power, nor does it conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling. Rather, it is a necessary legislative step towards ensuring a well-regulated, transparent, and secure online gaming industry in Nigeria. The misinterpretations presented by the FSGR only serve to distort public understanding of an issue that is both legally and economically significant.
“It is our submission that the Executive and Legislative Arms of Government cannot allow the challenges and potential security and financial threats inherent in this current situation to continue before putting in place measures to sanitise the online gaming industry.
” As Nigeria seeks to modernize and strengthen its gaming industry, all stakeholders must engage constructively and factually. The future of gaming regulation must be built on constitutional clarity, global best practices, and a commitment to national progress”.
English (US) ·