The Attorney‑General of Lagos State has raised strong objections to the Central Gaming Bill recently passed by the National Assembly, describing it as a potential constitutional violation and an assault on the authority of the Supreme Court.
In a letter dated 12 December 2025, addressed to the Attorney‑General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, the Lagos AG urged that President Bola Tinubu be advised to withhold assent to the bill.
The Lagos AG, through Chief Wole Olanipekun, SAN, argued that the legislation is illegal and unconstitutional, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in SC.1/2008 (AG Lagos State & Ors v. AGF & Ors). In that case, the apex court held that the National Assembly lacks legislative competence over lotteries, which are residual matters reserved for State Houses of Assembly.
The Supreme Court had, on 22 November 2024, nullified the National Lottery Act, ruling that it was enacted outside the constitutional vires of the National Assembly.
Despite this clear precedent, the National Assembly on 2 December 2025 passed the Central Gaming Bill, purporting to repeal the already nullified National Lottery Act and extend federal control over lottery, online gaming, and inter‑state gaming activities.
The bill suggests that revenues generated would be distributed by the Federal Government rather than paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, contrary to constitutional provisions on revenue sharing.
The Supreme Court had “flatly rejected” earlier arguments by the AGF and National Assembly that lottery and gaming constitute economic activities across state borders.
None of the constitutional provisions interpreted in SC.1/2008 have been amended, meaning the apex court’s ruling remains binding.
The Lagos AG expressed confidence that the AGF would not support a situation where the National Assembly reenacts legislation already declared ultra vires and unconstitutional. He urged the AGF to advise the President to decline assent to the bill, stressing that failure to do so would amount to a breach of the Constitution and an undermining of the Supreme Court’s final judgment.
