Tinubu’s Refusal to Sign Central Gaming Bill: A Constitutional and Political Examination

Nseobong Okon-Ekong examines the implications of President Bola Tinubu’s refusal to sign the Central Gaming Bill passed by the National Assembly, explaining the background, reasons, constitutional issues, and broader consequences

In December 2025, the Central Gaming Bill — legislation passed by Nigeria’s National Assembly aimed at creating a unified federal regulatory framework for gaming, online betting, lotteries, and related activities — reached President Bola Tinubu’s desk for assent. However, in a decisive move that has stirred political, legal, and policy debates, Tinubu publicly announced that he would not sign the bill into law. His action marks a critical moment in the ongoing discourse over the balance of powers between the federal government and Nigeria’s federating units.

What the Central Gaming Bill sought to do

The Central Gaming Bill, as passed by both chambers of the National Assembly on December 2, 2025, was designed to centralise regulatory authority over gaming and lottery activities under federal oversight. The law’s drafters argued it was necessary to modernise Nigeria’s burgeoning gaming sector, particularly online and digital platforms that operate across state lines and attract significant economic activity. Proponents maintained that unified regulation would improve compliance, streamline licensing, and increase government revenue.

Constitutional grounds

Tinubu’s rejection of the bill was rooted in constitutional interpretation and respect for judicial precedent, rather than opposition to gaming regulation per se. Speaking at the All Progressives Congress (APC) National Executive Committee meeting, he categorically stated that he would not give assent to a “centralised lotto” or gaming law. According to him, the regulation of gaming and lotteries falls within the residual legislative powers of the states under the 1999 Constitution, and not within the exclusive legislative authority of the National Assembly.

“What I want you to forget is centralised lotto… Residual matters belong to the legislative authority of the states… I am a constitutional democrat… I won’t sign it,” said the president.

Influence of Supreme Court jurisprudence

A key factor in Tinubu’s decision is a Supreme Court judgment delivered on November 22, 2024 (Suit No. SC.1/2008), in which the apex court nullified the National Lottery Act on the ground that the National Assembly lacked constitutional competence to legislate on lotteries and gaming, as they are residual matters. This ruling has shaped legal opinion and political discourse about the limits of federal legislative power in this policy space.

Legal advisors, including the attorney general of Lagos, represented by Wole Olanipekun (SAN), formally wrote to the attorney general of the federation, urging the president to withhold assent. They argued that the Central Gaming Bill was essentially a repackaged version of the defunct National Lottery Act and therefore unconstitutional.

Federalism, state autonomy, and political dynamics

The president’s stance underscores broader concerns about federalism in Nigeria, reinforcing the idea that matters not expressly allocated to the federal government remain within the domain of state governments. By refusing to sign the bill, Tinubu reaffirmed the constitutional doctrine of residual powers—a matter with significant implications for governance, intergovernmental relations, and the political balance between national and subnational authorities.

The rejection has been welcomed by state gaming regulators and some state governments, who view centralised regulation as a threat to their autonomy and existing revenue bases. Conversely, proponents of central legislation argue that fragmented gaming laws across states create compliance challenges and undermine investor confidence in a rapidly evolving digital economy.

Implications for the gaming industry

For the gaming and betting sector, Tinubu’s refusal means there will be no federal overhaul in the short term. Operators and investors must continue to navigate a patchwork of state-specific laws and regulations, while legal and legislative efforts may focus instead on crafting alternative frameworks that respect constitutional divisions of power.

Constitutionalism over centralisation

The president’s refusal to assent to the Central Gaming Bill illustrates a complex interplay between constitutional law, political governance, and economic policy in Nigeria. By anchoring his decision in respect for Supreme Court precedent and the constitutional order, Tinubu positioned his administration as a defender of federalism and state autonomy, even when the policy in question involves significant revenue potential. Whether this stance will foster innovative, state-centric regulatory solutions for gaming remains a central question for policymakers and industry stakeholders alike.