The Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN) strongly opposes provisions of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) Sales Promotion Regulations, 2026, that appear to give a federal agency licensing, approval or supervisory authority over lotteries, promotional lotteries, games of chance and related gaming activities within the States.

The Federation considers these provisions an 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 President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, GCFR.

At a time when Nigeria should be strengthening regulatory certainty and reducing overlapping government mandates, it is troubling that a federal institution would introduce regulations that appear to revive powers already declared unconstitutional by the nation’s highest court.

This is not a question of whether consumers deserve protection. They unquestionably do. The question is whether consumer protection can be used to justify a federal agency taking regulatory authority over activities constitutionally reserved for the States. In the FSGRN’s view, the answer is an emphatic no. Nigeria’s federal system is founded on the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Federation and the States.

Section 4(7) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), establishes the legislative powers of State Houses of Assembly over matters within their constitutional jurisdiction, including residual matters not assigned to the Federation. Lotteries, betting, gaming and games of chance fall within that residual legislative competence, subject to the constitutional position regarding the Federal Capital Territory.

This arrangement is not an administrative concession from the Federal Government. It is a fundamental feature of Nigeria’s constitutional structure. Accordingly, promotional activities that constitute lotteries, prize draws or other games of chance fall within the regulatory jurisdiction of the relevant State gaming authorities. Describing an activity as a consumer reward programme, promotional raffle, digital competition or marketing campaign does not, by itself, change its constitutional character.

A lottery does not cease to be a lottery simply because it is called a sales promotion. The substance of an activity should determine the competent regulatory authority. On 22 November 2024, the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered its judgment in Attorney-General of Lagos State & Ors v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors, Suit No. SC/1/2008. The judgment resolved a longstanding constitutional dispute over the authority to legislate and regulate lotteries and games of chance in Nigeria.

In affirming the State’s legislative competence, the Supreme Court invalidated the National Lottery Act, 2005, insofar as it purported to regulate lotteries within the States of the Federation. Of particular importance is Relief/Declaration No. 9, under which the Court granted a perpetual injunction restraining the Federal Government and its agencies from continuing to exercise the impugned lottery-regulatory powers within the States.

That injunction is a binding judicial order, not an advisory opinion or policy recommendation. The FCCPC, as a federal agency, cannot acquire authority through a general consumer-protection mandate that the Federal Government and its agencies have been restrained from exercising.

The FSGRN therefore considers that any FCCPC attempt to license, approve, supervise or otherwise exercise core gaming-regulatory powers over lotteries and games of chance within the States raises a serious question of compliance with the Supreme Court’s judgment.

What the Federal Government cannot do directly cannot lawfully be achieved indirectly through another federal agency, a different regulatory instrument or a change in terminology. Allowing otherwise would undermine the authority of the Supreme Court and risk creating a precedent in which constitutional judgments could be circumvented through subsidiary regulations. The judgment of 22 November 2024 must be implemented in substance, not merely acknowledged in principle.

The FSGRN is concerned that several provisions of the FCCPC Sales Promotion Regulations, 2026, go beyond ordinary consumer protection and enter areas associated with lottery licensing, gaming supervision and the administration of games of chance. Part I, Regulation 1, expressly extends the Regulations to lotteries, digital platforms and promotional activities across all sectors of the economy.

Regulation 3 provides that promotions constituting lotteries under the National Lottery Act, 2005, must comply with that Act and obtain approval from the National Lottery Regulatory Commission (NLRC). The FSGRN considers this especially troubling because it invokes a federal lottery-licensing framework whose application within the States was invalidated by the Supreme Court.

The Regulations also introduce mandatory registration of sales promotions with the FCCPC, payment of prescribed fees, the issuance of registration certificates, and powers to refuse, suspend or revoke registration. Part VIII goes further, empowering the FCCPC to supervise prize draws, monitor the selection of winners, request information about random-selection algorithms and order a re-draw where irregularities are suspected.

When applied to promotional lotteries and games of chance, these are substantive regulatory functions ordinarily exercised by competent gaming authorities. Regulation 64 also contemplates cooperation between the FCCPC and the NLRC where a promotion contains elements of a lottery.

The FSGRN finds it extraordinary that a regulatory instrument issued in 2026 would continue to present the NLRC as the relevant institutional authority without adequately reflecting the Supreme Court’s November 2024 judgment. The Federation rejects any arrangement that requires operators to obtain a second federal approval for lottery activities already subject to the lawful jurisdiction of State gaming regulators.

Such duplication would increase compliance costs, create regulatory uncertainty and conflicting requirements, and impose avoidable barriers to investment. More fundamentally, it would undermine the constitutional autonomy of the States. The FSGRN recognizes and respects the FCCPC’s statutory mandate to protect Nigerian consumers from unfair, misleading, deceptive and exploitative commercial practices.

State gaming regulators share these objectives and already oversee matters including promotional lotteries, prize draws, gaming advertisements, player protection, fairness, transparency and the fulfillment of prize obligations. The Federation does not dispute the FCCPC’s legitimate role in addressing consumer-protection concerns within its statutory mandate.

However, a general consumer-protection mandate does not, in the FSGRN’s view, confer authority to license or regulate activities that fall within the State’s jurisdiction. There is a fundamental distinction between protecting a consumer who participates in a lottery and taking responsibility for licensing, approving, supervising or regulating the lottery itself.

The former may fall within the FCCPC’s consumer-protection responsibilities. The latter, within the States, belongs to the competent State gaming authorities. The FSGRN therefore rejects any interpretation of the Sales Promotion Regulations, 2026, that would permit the FCCPC to exercise core lottery-regulatory functions under the guise of consumer protection.

The Federation considers the Regulations inconsistent with the principles of constitutional federalism advocated by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. President Tinubu has demonstrated his commitment to true federalism, constitutional supremacy and the rule of law through his opposition to the proposed Central Gaming Bill, which sought to reintroduce federal control over an area constitutionally reserved for the States.

That position reflects the principle that State autonomy must be respected and Supreme Court judgments upheld. Any Act of the National Assembly or regulation issued by a federal ministry, department or agency that contravenes the Constitution or undermines a binding Supreme Court judgment would affront constitutional supremacy, true federalism and the rule of law.

The FCCPC Sales Promotion Regulations, 2026, must be assessed against that standard. No federal institution should use administrative rule-making or subsidiary legislation to restore regulatory powers that the Supreme Court has held to be outside the Federal Government’s constitutional competence.

The FSGRN calls for the immediate review and amendment of the FCCPC Sales Promotion Regulations, 2026, to remove provisions that encroach on the constitutional regulatory powers of the States over lotteries, promotional lotteries, prize draws and games of chance. This should include removing references to the invalidated National Lottery Act, 2005, and the NLRC where they imply federal authority over lottery regulation within the States.

The Regulations must comply fully with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Suit No. SC/1/2008, including its perpetual injunction restraining federal interference in State lottery regulation, while preserving the FCCPC’s legitimate consumer-protection mandate. The FSGRN urges the FCCPC to align the Regulations with the judgment and calls on the Attorney-General of the Federation to ensure compliance across federal agencies.

The Federation remains committed to inter-agency cooperation, consumer protection and industry development. However, 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 use subsidiary regulations to revive powers invalidated by the nation’s highest court. Nigeria’s federalism must be respected in both principle and practice.