Nseobong Okon-Ekong reports that FSGRN has accused FCCPC of defying the Supreme Court, smuggling federal control of gaming through the back door
Businesses offering promotional prize draws could face duplicate approvals and higher compliance costs, while consumers risk confusion over which regulator is responsible when disputes arise, as the Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN) accuses the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) of encroaching on state gaming powers through its Sales Promotion Regulations 2026. The federation argues that the rules revive federal control over lotteries despite a Supreme Court judgment it says bars such interference within the states.
In a statement signed by Olajide Boladuro, Director-General of the Oyo State Lottery and Gaming Board and Vice Chairman of FSGRN, the federation demanded an immediate review of the regulations, insisting that consumer protection must not become a route to assuming gaming powers constitutionally assigned to states.
The dispute centres on the Supreme Court’s November 22, 2024 judgment in Attorney General of Lagos State & Ors v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors, Suit No. SC/1/2008. The FSGRN says the ruling invalidated the National Lottery Act 2005 insofar as it regulated lotteries within the states and restrained federal interference in the sector.
At issue is Regulation 3 of the FCCPC’s 2026 rules, which directs promoters of activities classified as lotteries under the Act to comply with its provisions and obtain approval from the National Lottery Regulatory Commission (NLRC). The federation argues that this revives a federal licensing framework affected by the Supreme Court’s decision.
The regulations also require sales promotion registration, fee and certificate payments, and empower the FCCPC to supervise prize draws, scrutinise winner selection, demand information on random-selection algorithms, and order fresh draws where irregularities are suspected. The FSGRN says these measures go beyond policing misleading promotions and intrude into the licensing and supervision of gaming activities.
“A lottery does not cease to be a lottery merely because it is described as a sales promotion,” the federation said.
It warned that operators facing overlapping federal and state requirements could incur additional costs, potentially affecting the cost and availability of promotional campaigns. It also questioned Regulation 64, which envisages cooperation between the FCCPC and the NLRC on promotions involving lottery elements.
The federation acknowledged the FCCPC’s role in protecting consumers against deceptive practices and failures to honour promotional promises. However, it argued that unclear boundaries between regulators could make it harder for consumers and businesses to identify the appropriate authority when complaints arise. It maintained that consumer protection and gaming regulation require distinct but coordinated responsibilities.
The FSGRN called for amendments removing provisions it considers inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s judgment, including references to the National Lottery Act 2005 and the NLRC. It also urged the Attorney General of the Federation to ensure compliance with the ruling, warning that regulatory overlap must not undermine consumer confidence, increase business costs or erode the constitutional powers of state gaming authorities.
The FCCPC’s regulations have opened a fresh regulatory dispute over the boundaries between federal consumer protection powers and state control of gaming, with operators potentially facing uncertainty over which authorities can lawfully demand registration, approval and supervision of promotional lotteries.