Regulators are not judged by what they claim, they are judged by what they can prove. that is why recent statement made by Bashir Are, the Chief Executive Officer of the Lagos State Lotteries and Gaming Authority (LSLGA), regarding the issuance of five licenses to prediction market operators deserve far greater scrutiny from investors, operators and the wider gaming industry.
According to the remarks made at the Gaming Tech Summit Africa (GTSA) the LSLGA supremo in Kenya said five operators have been licensed to operate prediction market products in Nigeria.
If accurate, this is not a minor regulatory update, it is a market moving announcement.
Prediction markets are among the most debated sectors in global gaming and financial regulation. Around the world, governments continue to wrestle with questions surrounding classification, oversight, compliance and consumer protection.
A claim that five licenses have already been issued in ‘’Lagos’’ would therefore represent a significant regulatory milestone.
Naturally, stakeholders want details such as, Who are the five operators? When were the licenses issued? Under which legal framework are they approved? What compliance obligations apply? How does the Authority distinguish prediction markets from other regulated activities?
These are neither difficult nor hostile questions; they are questions any responsible investor would ask before allocating capital. For a regulator that oversees one of Africa’s most important gaming markets, lack of publicly accessible information on the LSLGA website is both surprising and concerning.
A search on the agency’s website does not reveal any information on any operator granted a prediction license, prediction market is not even listed on the website. Transparency is not a luxury in modern regulation; it is a requirement.
When critical information cannot be easily found on a regulator’s website, uncertainty fills the gap. In an industry where credibility drives investment, the absence of accessible information risks undermining confidence in both the regulator and the market it oversees.
The issue is no longer the licenses themselves, the issue is the ambiguity surrounding the licenses. Investors need clarity on who received them, under what framework were they issued and what regulatory protections exist. The market can tolerate strict regulation but cannot tolerate lack of transparency.
Investors evaluating opportunities in emerging or frontier gaming markets examine regulatory quality as closely as they examine market size. A regulator’s credibility is therefore not a public relations issue; it is an investment issue.
Therefore, when claims are made at international industry events, they become part of the narrative. Once that happens, stakeholders have every right to request evidence and clarification.
This is why Bashir Are CEO LSLGA must answer these questions. Not because journalists are asking or because operators are curios but because transparency is a fundamental responsibility of regulatory leadership. The consequences of continued silence are predictable.
Investors might begin questioning the reliability of public statements. Industry stakeholders may wonder whether important decisions are being communicated with sufficient transparency. The solution remains remarkably simple.
If five licenses have been issued, publish the framework, coupled with evidence and this will allow the market to examine the facts. Reason been that, credibility is not built through announcements made on conference stages.
It is built through transparency, accountability and verification. And until those questions are answered, the conversation will not be about the five licenses. It will be about why the answers remain missing.
