LAW AND REGULATION IN NIGERIA
Previous Nigerian judicial decisions on the subject matter Before the recent Supreme Court decision under review, there have been a couple of decisions of other subordinate courts in Nigeria on the issue. In the case of Nigeria Employers’ Consultative Association (NECA) & Anor v A. G. Federation , 17 the Court of Appeal (an intermediate court in Nigeria) held that the National Assembly has the legislative power to legislate on matters pertaining to lottery under Section 4 of the Constitution and under Item 62, 67 and 68 of the Exclusive Legislative List. In this case, the Court of Appeal held that there is no delimitation of the National Assembly’s power to enact laws on lottery matters neither is there a conferment of exclusive legislative powers on the House of Assembly of a state concerning lottery matters. The Court of Appeal further held that the National Assembly’s legislative power is vast enough to enact the National Lottery Act of 2005. In Association of Bookmakers v The National Lottery Regulatory Commission & Ors , 18 the Federal High Court (a court of first instance in Nigeria) held that lottery is within the Exclusive Legislative List in the Second Schedule to the Constitution. The Court further held that the Lagos State Lotteries Board, being the third defendant in the suit, cannot regulate betting business in Lagos state via section 9 of the Lagos State Lotteries (Amendment) Law, 2008. The Federal High Court, relying on the case of Agbakoba v A. G Federation & Ors 19 held that the National Assembly can legislate on items set out in the Exclusive Legislative List to the exclusion of the House of Assembly of a state. It is important to note that while the former decision held that the National Assembly’s legislative power can be interpreted to include lottery, in the light of section 4 of the Constitution, the latter pronounced that lottery matters fall within the ambit of the Exclusive Legislative List, particularly Items 62, 67 and 68, which consequently makes the National Assembly the sole authority to legislate on lottery matters. Item 62 concerns trade and commerce while Items 67 and 68 are panoramic powers of the National Assembly. Further findings will be discussed as lottery being classified as part of trade and commerce.
Regulation of lottery and gaming in Nigeria prior to the supreme court decision Prior to the recent Supreme Court decision, lottery and gaming companies were subjected to dual licensing and regulations. By this we mean that they had to obtain licenses from the National Lottery Regulatory Commission then obtain another license from the state lottery regulatory body of each state they seek to operate in. This multiplicity of licensing and regulations placed a heavy financial burden on lottery and gaming companies because the licenses did not come cheap and they were subject to periodic renewals. Beyond the issue of financial burden was the challenge of meeting multiple regulatory compliances required by both the federal and state regulators. Implication of the Supreme Court decision Nullifying the National Lottery Act, 2005 1. Exclusive state regulation of lottery: State Houses of Assembly now have full and exclusive authority to legislate on lottery matters within their states. This means that, for states that already have their own state lottery regulations, 20 the state regulator has full power and regulatory ambit over all lottery matters (including licensing, etc.) within such state. 2. Implied nullification of existing licenses issued by the NLRC: Although the Supreme Court did not explicitly address the status of existing licenses issued by the NLRC, it can be inferred that, with the invalidation of the National Lottery Act, these licenses are now null and void, as the power of the NLRC to issue those licenses stemmed from the National Lottery Act. Consequently, lottery/gaming operators who solely held NLRC licenses 21 would need to obtain licenses from individual states with established regulatory frameworks, as they would likely now need separate licenses for each state where they operate, rather than relying on a single national license.
17 (2021) LPELR – 54042 (CA) 18 FHC/L/CS/15992020 19 (2021) LPELR – 55906 (CA) 20 Examples: Lagos State, Anambra State, Cross River State, Oyo State etc. 21 Such operators are rare to find because as we listed earlier, most operators had both federal{NLRC) and state licenses before the Supreme Court’s decision.
PAGE 28
IMGL MAGAZINE | MARCH 2025
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker