Nigeria
has spent years having a conversation about gaming regulation as though the
biggest question was how to make the system work.
Perhaps
we have been asking the wrong question. The
more fundamental question today is who has the constitutional responsibility to
regulate gaming in Nigeria?
That
question is no longer theoretical. On
November 22, 2024, the Supreme Court, in Attorney-General of Lagos State &
Others v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Others, nullified the
National Lottery Act 2005 and held that the National Assembly lacked the
constitutional authority to legislate for the regulation and control of
lotteries and games of chance across the states.
The Court affirmed that states
have the power to legislate on and regulate lottery within their territories,
with the Federal Capital Territory remaining a distinct federal jurisdiction.
That
judgment should have changed the way we think about gaming regulation in
Nigeria.
It
is therefore difficult to understand why we should continue trying to preserve
a quasi-federal regulatory arrangement that does not have the same clear
constitutional and statutory foundation.
This
is not an argument against cooperation. In
fact, Nigeria needs more cooperation between regulators, not less. State gaming
commissions should be able to share intelligence, technology, standards, data
and enforcement information.
Operators should not have to deal with completely
different principles every time they cross a state boundary.
But
cooperation is not the same as centralisation. A
country can have strong state regulators without having regulatory chaos.
What
Nigeria needs is a network of properly established, properly empowered and
professionally run state gaming regulators that understand their local markets
and exercise authority within clearly defined legal boundaries.
This
is particularly important because gaming is not the same everywhere. The
structure of the industry in Lagos may not be identical to what exists in
Enugu. The realities of gaming in Kano may be different from those in Rivers or
Anambra. States have different economic priorities, different consumer
environments, different levels of technology adoption and different enforcement
challenges.
Why
should regulation pretend otherwise? There
is also an economic argument. When
a state takes responsibility for regulating gaming within its jurisdiction, it
has a direct reason to understand the industry beyond collecting revenue. It
can decide what kind of gaming ecosystem it wants to develop, what standards it
expects from operators, how it protects consumers, how it addresses illegal
gaming and how it uses technology to improve oversight.
This
is where Enugu offers an interesting example. The
state has not simply argued for decentralisation. It has been building the
institutional framework to support it.
The
Enugu State Gaming and Lottery Commission Law 2025, which took effect on
January 1, 2026, replaced the state’s older gaming law and established a more
comprehensive framework for regulating gaming and lottery activities in Enugu.
The legislation gives the Commission powers covering licensing, inspection,
enforcement, consumer protection and other aspects of the state’s gaming
ecosystem.
Even
before that law took effect, Enugu had been publicly making the case for
decentralised regulation. At the 2025 Enugu Gaming Conference, Governor Peter
Mbah identified decentralisation and technology as important drivers of the
industry’s development, while the Commission’s Executive Secretary, Prince
Arinze Arum, argued for a regulatory structure tailored to local realities
while maintaining cooperation with federal institutions.
That
position deserves a wider national conversation. The
objective should not be to create 36 competing regulatory philosophies.
The
objective should be to create 36 opportunities for states to build strong
regulatory institutions within the constitutional space available to them,
while developing mechanisms for coordination where the industry crosses state
boundaries.
This
is also where technology becomes important. A
properly connected network of state regulators could share information about
operators, licences, illegal activities, suspicious transactions and emerging
risks. Technology can make decentralisation more coordinated, not less.
Perhaps
the biggest mistake would be to interpret decentralisation as fragmentation.
It
does not have to be. Decentralisation
can mean bringing regulation closer to the market while cooperation keeps the
system connected.
And
this brings me to Enugu. At
the 17th Annual Gaming Regulators Africa Forum in Maputo, Mozambique, Prince
Arinze Arum was conferred with the Industry Contribution Award, recognising his
contribution to the development of gaming regulation.
That
recognition is significant, but I think its importance goes beyond one
individual. It
is also a moment of recognition for what the Enugu State Gaming and Lottery
Commission has been trying to demonstrate: that a state regulator can think
beyond routine licensing and enforcement and engage with the bigger questions
of jurisdiction, technology, consumer protection, innovation and the future of
the industry.
Arum’s
recognition in Maputo therefore comes at an interesting time for Nigeria. The
question before us is no longer whether states should have a voice in gaming
regulation. The constitutional position has given us a much clearer direction.
The
question is whether Nigerian states will take that responsibility seriously.
Nigeria
does not need weaker regulation. It
needs clearer regulation, stronger institutions and legally grounded authority.
It
does not need every state to work alone. It
needs states that can regulate independently while cooperating intelligently.
Perhaps
that is the real lesson from Enugu, and perhaps that is also what makes Arum’s
Industry Contribution Award worth celebrating.
It
is not just recognition for an individual regulator. It
is recognition of the idea that strong state-level regulation can be part of
the future of Nigerian gaming.
And
perhaps Nigeria’s next chapter in gaming regulation should begin there: not
with another attempt to recreate the centre, but with states building
institutions strong enough to regulate their own gaming economies and connected
enough to contribute to a truly Nigerian regulatory ecosystem.
FacebookShare on XLinkedInWhatsAppEmail
Tags:Prince Arinze Arum
Previous Post
