FSGRN warns against reintroduction of Federal Lottery Regulation through the back door

OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE FEDERATION OF STATE GAMING REGULATORS OF NIGERIA (FSGRN)

FCCPC SALES PROMOTION REGULATIONS 2026: AN AFFRONT TO THE SUPREME COURT, STATE REGULATORY POWERS AND THE PRINCIPLES OF TRUE FEDERALISM

FSGRN Warns Against the Reintroduction of Federal Lottery Regulation Through the Back Door

The Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN) expresses its unequivocal opposition to the provisions of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) Sales Promotion Regulations, 2026, insofar as they seek to confer regulatory, licensing, approval and supervisory powers over lotteries, promotional lotteries, games of chance and related gaming activities on a federal agency.

The Federation considers these provisions a direct affront to the constitutional powers of the States, the binding judgment of the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered on 22 November 2024, and the principles of true federalism championed by the administration of His Excellency, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR.

At a time when Nigeria should be consolidating the gains of constitutional federalism, strengthening regulatory certainty and eliminating overlapping governmental mandates, it is deeply troubling that a federal institution would introduce regulations that appear to revive powers already declared unconstitutional by the nation’s highest court.

The issue before us is not whether consumers deserve protection. They unquestionably do. The issue is whether consumer protection can become a convenient instrument for a federal agency to assume regulatory authority over activities constitutionally reserved for the States.

The answer, in our considered view, is an emphatic no.

The Constitution Is Clear: Gaming Regulation Belongs to the States

Nigeria operates a federal system of government founded on the constitutional distribution of legislative powers between the Federation and its constituent States.

Section 4(7) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), establishes the legislative competence of State Houses of Assembly over matters falling within their constitutional jurisdiction, including residual matters not assigned to the Federation.

Lotteries, betting, gaming and games of chance fall within this residual legislative competence, subject to the constitutional position regarding the Federal Capital Territory.

This constitutional arrangement is neither an administrative concession from the Federal Government nor a privilege that can be withdrawn through subsidiary legislation. It is a fundamental feature of Nigeria’s constitutional architecture.

Accordingly, promotional activities that constitute lotteries, prize draws or other games of chance fall within the regulatory jurisdiction of the relevant State gaming authorities.

Whether a lottery is presented as a standalone commercial venture, a consumer reward programme, a promotional raffle, a digital competition or a marketing campaign does not, by itself, alter the constitutional character of the underlying activity.

A lottery does not cease to be a lottery merely because it is described as a sales promotion.

The legal substance of an activity, rather than the commercial terminology attached to it, must determine the competent regulatory authority.

The Supreme Court Has Spoken: Declaration No. 9 Must Be Respected

On 22 November 2024, the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered its landmark judgment in Attorney-General of Lagos State & Ors v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors, Suit No. SC/1/2008.

The judgment settled a longstanding constitutional dispute over the authority to legislate and regulate lotteries and games of chance in Nigeria.

In affirming the legislative competence of the States, the Supreme Court invalidated the National Lottery Act, 2005, insofar as it purported to regulate lotteries within the States of the Federation.

Of particular significance to the present controversy is Relief/Declaration No. 9, under which the Supreme Court granted a perpetual injunction restraining the Federal Government and its agencies from continuing to exercise the impugned lottery regulatory powers within the States.

The significance of this injunction cannot be overstated.

A perpetual injunction issued by the Supreme Court is not an advisory opinion, a policy recommendation or an invitation to administrative negotiation. It is a binding judicial order that must be obeyed by the parties against whom it operates and by those legally bound through them.

The Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission is an agency of the Federal Government. It cannot, merely by invoking its general consumer protection mandate, acquire authority that the Supreme Court has restrained the Federal Government and its agencies from exercising.

The FSGRN therefore maintains that any attempt by the FCCPC to license, approve, supervise or otherwise exercise core gaming regulatory powers over lotteries and games of chance within the States raises a direct question of compliance with the Supreme Court’s judgment and, particularly, its perpetual injunction.

What the Federal Government has been restrained from doing directly cannot lawfully be accomplished indirectly through another federal agency, a different regulatory instrument or a change in administrative terminology.

To permit otherwise would undermine the authority of the Supreme Court and create a dangerous precedent in which constitutional judgments could be circumvented through subsidiary regulations.

The Federation insists that the judgment of 22 November 2024 must be implemented in substance, not merely acknowledged in principle.

FCCPC Regulations 2026: A Troubling Attempt to Reassert Federal Control

A careful examination of the FCCPC Sales Promotion Regulations, 2026, reveals provisions that extend considerably beyond ordinary consumer protection and enter areas traditionally associated with lottery licensing, gaming supervision and the administration of games of chance.

Part I, Regulation 1 expressly extends the application of the Regulations to lotteries, digital platforms and promotional activities across all sectors of the economy.

More troubling is Regulation 3, which provides that promotions constituting lotteries under the National Lottery Act, 2005, must comply with that Act and seek the approval of the National Lottery Regulatory Commission (NLRC).

This provision is particularly objectionable.

It expressly invokes a federal lottery licensing framework whose application within the States was invalidated by the Supreme Court. It also directs promoters towards the very federal regulatory institution whose former authority over lotteries within the States was constitutionally challenged and judicially restrained.

The Federation considers this an unacceptable disregard for the legal consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The contradictions extend beyond Regulation 3.

Under Part II, the Regulations introduce mandatory registration of sales promotions with the FCCPC, payment of prescribed fees, issuance of registration certificates, and powers to refuse, suspend or revoke registration.

Part VIII goes further by empowering the FCCPC to supervise prize draws, monitor winner selection, demand information concerning random selection algorithms and order a re-draw where irregularities are suspected.

These are not merely incidental consumer protection measures. Where applied to promotional lotteries and games of chance, they are substantive regulatory functions ordinarily exercised by competent gaming authorities.

Similarly, Regulation 64 expressly contemplates cooperation between the FCCPC and the National Lottery Regulatory Commission where a promotion contains elements of a lottery.

The FSGRN finds it extraordinary that a regulatory instrument introduced in 2026 would continue to present the former federal lottery regulator as the relevant institutional authority without adequately reflecting the Supreme Court’s judgment of November 2024.

The Federation rejects any arrangement that would require operators to obtain a second federal approval for lottery activities already subject to the lawful jurisdiction of State gaming regulators.

Such duplication would create unnecessary compliance costs, regulatory uncertainty, conflicting administrative requirements and avoidable barriers to investment.

More fundamentally, it would undermine the constitutional autonomy of the States.

Consumer Protection Must Not Become a Pretext for Regulatory Encroachment

The FSGRN recognises and respects the statutory mandate of the FCCPC to protect Nigerian consumers against unfair, misleading, deceptive and exploitative commercial practices.

Indeed, State gaming regulators share these objectives.

Across the Federation, gaming authorities already exercise oversight over promotional lotteries, prize draws, gaming advertisements, player protection, fairness, transparency and the fulfilment of prize obligations.

The Federation therefore does not dispute the legitimate role of the FCCPC in addressing consumer protection concerns that fall within its enabling legislation.

What we dispute is the apparent assumption that a general consumer protection mandate confers an additional power to license or regulate activities that the Constitution places under State jurisdiction.

There is a fundamental legal distinction between protecting a consumer participating in a lottery and assuming responsibility for licensing, approving, supervising and regulating the lottery itself.

The former may fall within the FCCPC’s statutory consumer protection responsibilities. The latter, within the States, belongs to the competent State gaming authorities.

Where an activity constitutes a lottery or game of chance, its regulation must remain consistent with the applicable State gaming laws and the constitutional allocation of legislative authority.

The FSGRN consequently rejects any interpretation of the FCCPC Sales Promotion Regulations, 2026, that would permit the Commission to exercise core lottery regulatory functions under the guise of consumer protection.

President Tinubu’s Commitment to True Federalism Must Be Reflected in Federal Institutions

The Federation also considers the present development inconsistent with the broader principles of constitutional federalism long advocated by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has further demonstrated his commitment to true federalism, constitutional supremacy and the rule of law through his firm opposition to the proposed Central Gaming Bill, which sought to reintroduce federal control over an area constitutionally reserved for the States. This position reinforces the President’s longstanding conviction that the constitutional autonomy of States must be respected and that the judgments of the Supreme Court must be upheld without reservation.

Consequently, any Act of the National Assembly or regulation issued by any Federal Ministry, Department or Agency (MDA) that contravenes the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), or undermines the binding judgments and decisions of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, constitutes a direct affront to the principles of constitutional supremacy, true federalism and respect for the rule of law championed by President Tinubu.

The FCCPC Sales Promotion Regulations, 2026, must therefore be examined against this fundamental standard. No federal institution should, through administrative rulemaking or subsidiary legislation, seek to resurrect regulatory powers that the Supreme Court has already declared to be outside the constitutional competence of the Federal Government.

FSGRN Demands Immediate Review of the Regulations

In light of the foregoing, the Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN) demands the immediate review and amendment of the FCCPC Sales Promotion Regulations, 2026, to remove all provisions that encroach upon the constitutional regulatory powers of States over lotteries, promotional lotteries, prize draws and games of chance, including references to the invalidated National Lottery Act, 2005, and the National Lottery Regulatory Commission. The Federation insists that the Regulations must fully comply with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Suit No. SC/1/2008, particularly its perpetual injunction restraining federal interference in State lottery regulation, while preserving the FCCPC’s legitimate consumer protection mandate.

The Authority of the Supreme Court Is Not Negotiable

The FSGRN reiterates that the constitutional powers of States are neither negotiable nor subject to administrative discretion. The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment of November 2024 conclusively affirmed State jurisdiction over lotteries and games of chance and must be respected by all federal institutions.

We therefore call upon the FCCPC to align its Regulations with the judgment and urge the Attorney-General of the Federation to ensure compliance across federal agencies. While the Federation remains committed to inter-agency cooperation, consumer protection and industry development, it will not compromise the constitutional rights of its member States and will pursue all lawful measures necessary to defend them.

The Supreme Court has spoken. The Constitution is supreme. No federal agency can resurrect through subsidiary regulations powers already invalidated by the nation’s highest court. Nigeria’s federalism must be respected in both principle and practice.

Signed

Mr. Olajide Boladuro.

Director-General, Oyo State Lottery and Gaming Board

Vice Chairman, Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN)

For and on behalf of the Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria.