Concerned about the National Assembly’s attempts to pass the Central Gaming Bill, despite a Supreme Court ruling that the legislation is unconstitutional, the Lagos State government has requested leave from the apex court to initiate contempt proceedings against the lawmakers.
The state is urging the Supreme Court, in an application filed by Bode Olanipekun (SAN), to grant permission to initiate judgment enforcement proceedings by issuing Form 48, a legal step that precedes the commencement of contempt proceedings.
Under Nigerian law, Form 48 is a Notice of Consequence of Disobedience of a Court Order, which formally warns individuals that they may face penalties, such as imprisonment, if they fail to comply with the court’s directive.
In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the Lagos State government argued that the National Assembly’s ongoing work on the Central Gaming Bill directly violates the Supreme Court’s judgment in SC.1/2008 – Attorney-General of Lagos State & Ors. v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors, delivered on November 22, 2024.
The applicant argued that clauses 7 and 21–64 of the proposed Bill pertain solely to lottery and gaming areas, which have already been deemed outside the legislative competence of the National Assembly by the Supreme Court.
The Applicant also maintained that these provisions effectively replicate those in the now-nullified National Lottery Act, which the Supreme Court struck down in the same judgment of 2024.
The Appellant further stated that both the nullified National Lottery Act and the Central Gaming Bill define “lottery” and “online gaming” as identical terms.
It said that, “These definitions encompass any game, scheme, arrangement, system, plan, or promotional competition based on chance, skill, or sporting outcomes, which requires a license to operate.”
The state claimed that, despite the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling invalidating the National Lottery Act, Clause 62 of the Central Gaming Bill introduces “savings provisions” intended to revalidate actions taken under the voided law, thereby directly defying the Supreme Court’s authority.
Lagos pointed out that since the Supreme Court delivered its judgment, neither the Exclusive nor the Concurrent Legislative Lists under the Second Schedule of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) have been modified to include lottery or gaming, further confirming that the National Assembly lacks the power to legislate on these matters.
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered in 2024, stated that any Act of the National Assembly cannot regulate lotteries and gaming, as these subjects are not listed under the constitutional Legislative Lists.
The apex court rejected the National Assembly’s argument that its power derived from Item 62 of the Exclusive Legislative List, which covers “trade and commerce,” or that the electronic and interstate nature of gaming placed it within federal jurisdiction.
