At a recent APC National Executive Committee meeting, Tinubu refused to sign the Central Gaming Bill, which sought to centralise <\/strong>regulation of gaming, lotteries and online betting under a federal authority. He reaffirmed that oversight<\/strong> remains with individual states<\/strong>, in line with a 2024 Supreme Court ruling. Experts say this gives operators legal clarity, operational certainty<\/strong> and a stable framework for investment in Nigeria\u2019s fast-growing digital gaming market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Industry platform and igaming hub iBet Africa<\/strong> described Tinubu\u2019s decision as a turning point for Nigeria\u2019s iGaming market. iBet Africa said: \u201cTinubu\u2019s decision will reshape how investors<\/strong>, operators and suppliers approach Nigeria going into 2026. Gaming and lottery<\/strong> regulation belong to the States, not a single federal authority. For anyone looking to enter, scale or invest in Nigeria\u2019s iGaming market, understanding what is now required legally<\/strong> and operationally is no longer optional.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n iBet Africa emphasised that companies must now engage<\/strong> closely with state regulators, build local partnerships and ensure full operational compliance<\/strong> to thrive under the new state-led framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even before Tinubu\u2019s rejection, legal authorities had criticised<\/strong> the Central Gaming Bill as overreach. Obinna Akpuchukwu<\/strong>, senior partner at Allen and Marylebone, said: \u201cThe Central Gaming Bill, if passed, would be unconstitutional<\/strong>. The proponents\u2019 claim that it regulates online or remote gaming beyond the National Lottery Act is, with respect, unfounded. The nullified National Lottery Act already covers land based, online and remote gaming, and the Supreme Court made no distinction between them.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria <\/strong>(FSGRN)<\/strong> had opposed<\/strong> the bill, citing the constitutional division of powers and the 2024 Supreme Court judgment<\/strong> that gaming and lottery regulation belongs to states, not the federal government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Civil society organisations, including the Coalition for Good Governance<\/strong>, described the legislative attempt as a \u201cvoyage of legislative rascality<\/strong>, recklessness and lawlessness<\/strong>\u201d, warning that any federal takeover of gaming regulation would violate judicial authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With Tinubu\u2019s rejection, state authorities are now firmly positioned as the definitive <\/strong>regulators, compelling operators <\/strong>to engage directly with state agencies for licensing<\/strong>, reporting and compliance, and to build strong regional partnerships with service providers and legal experts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Industry analysts predict that 2026 could see state-led innovation<\/strong> in licensing, compliance and promotional frameworks, with proactive states attracting investment. Operators must review and align operations with state-specific rules to avoid penalties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the political debate focused on constitutional powers, the market is ready for growth<\/strong>, with states expected to strengthen oversight, enhance coordination and provide clear guidance, creating a legally compliant <\/strong>and commercially attractive<\/strong> framework for gaming and lottery businesses nationwide.<\/p>\n\n\nExperts back states as gaming regulators<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/africa\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2025\/11\/Governor-Peter-Mbah_and_enugu-300x200.jpg\")
<\/p>\n