This February, the 2025 Nigerian Central Gaming Bill (CGB) passed its second reading at the House of Representatives. The bill aims to create a unified regulatory framework for the operation of online and remote gaming across Nigeria and beyond its borders.

Before analyzing this bill, it is important to note that prior to its introduction, there was significant controversy regarding regulatory control over gaming and lottery activities in Nigeria. Both state and federal governments asserted authority, with the federal government’s power stemming from the 2005 National Lotteries Act (NLA).

However, the new CGB seeks to repeal the NLA, as stated in its title:

“Bill for an Act to Repeal the National Lottery Act No. 7 of 2005 and the National Lottery (Amendment) Act No. 6 of 2017, and to Enact the Central Gaming Bill to Regulate the Operation and Business of all forms of Online and Remote Gaming Across the Geographical Boundaries of the Federating Units and beyond the Borders of Nigeria, Provide for the Conduct of Gaming in the Federal Capital Territory, and enhance Revenue Generation for the Federation and for Related Matters.”

BACKGROUND TO THE NEW CGB

Before November 2024, there was an ongoing jurisdictional dispute between federal and state governments over legislative powers regarding lottery and gaming. The subject was not explicitly listed in the Exclusive Legislative List, which is reserved for federal government control. In the absence of express inclusion, state governments assumed regulatory control, with states such as Lagos and Oyo enacting their own gaming laws.

However, this changed in November 2024, when the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Attorney General of Lagos & Others v. Attorney General of the Federation & Others that the NLA was unenforceable in all states except the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

One might have assumed this ruling would resolve the issue, but some legislators took a creative approach by leveraging the fact that telecommunications and the internet are explicitly listed under the Exclusive Legislative List—subjects under federal jurisdiction. Based on this reasoning, the CGB was conceived to regulate all activities related to online gaming. However, in doing so, esports and video games became unintended casualties. How? Let’s explore.

THE CGB AND ESPORTS/VIDEO GAMING

Definition and Scope of Online Gaming

The bill was designed to regulate the operation and business of all forms of online and remote gaming across Nigeria. Therefore, understanding its scope requires examining the definition section, where online gaming is defined as:

“any game, scheme, arrangement, system, plan, promotional competition, raffle draw, or device for the distribution of prizes by lot or chance, or as a result of the exercise of skill and chance or based on the outcome of sporting events, or any other game, scheme, arrangement, system, plan, competition or device, which the Commission may declare to be online gaming in a prescribed form and which shall be operated according to a licence.”

Comparing this to the NLA, where lottery was defined as:

“any game, scheme, arrangement, system, plan, promotional competition or device for the distribution of prizes by lot or chance, or as a result of the exercise of skill and chance or based on the outcome of sporting events or any other device which the President may by notice in the gazette declare to be lottery and which shall be operated according to a licence.”

At first glance, both definitions seem similar. However, a closer look shows that the CGB expands its scope by including “the outcome of sporting events or any other game.”

Prior to the CGB, esports and video gaming stakeholders in Nigeria relied on two key arguments to distinguish their activities from those covered by the NLA:

• The role of skill in esports competitions, as teams adopt a professional structure involving regular training and coaching.
• Most esports tournaments are free to enter, with monetization on entry fees already regulated by game publishers.

However, the broad definition under the CGB, particularly the phrase “exercise of skill based on the outcome of a game”, could now capture esports tournaments and competitive video gaming under regulatory control.

This definition is critical because Section 21 of the CGB states that no one can conduct online gaming without a permit, license, or exemption from the Commission. Non-compliance results in fines of at least ₦5 million for individuals and ₦20 million for corporate entities.

Furthermore, Section 24(1) expands the scope to potentially include esports and video games by allowing corporations to apply for licenses for:

• Online pari-mutuel betting
• Online fixed-odds (lotto)
• Online sports betting
• Online casino games
• Any other online game

Given the broad definition of online gaming, “any other online game” could easily be interpreted to include esports and video games enabling esports competitions.

Online Gaming Technology

The bill defines Online Gaming Technology as:

• Any software or hardware used by an online gaming operator.
• Any technological innovation that could influence gaming outcomes.
• Any equipment integral to the operation of an online gaming scheme.

If esports and video games fall under this interpretation, stakeholders in the industry would not only require licenses but would also have additional obligations. Sections 26 and 27 of the CGB mandate that all operators:

• Connect to a central monitoring system.
• Register on the National Gaming Computer Emergency Response Team (NG-CERT).
• Renew their certificate annually.

INSIGHTS

It appears that the CGB did not intentionally target esports, as its language is inconsistent with industry practices. A key indicator is the failure to explicitly mention esports in Section 24(1) while specifically listing gambling-related activities. Using a purposive interpretation – which considers legislative history and intent – it could be argued that “any other online game” should not be interpreted to include esports.

Moreover, since the bill’s foundation relies on the federal government’s control over telecommunications and the internet, esports and video gaming could be classified under interactive entertainment, akin to films and music. Both industries rely on telecommunications and the internet but are not federally regulated under gambling laws. This distinction could serve as a strong argument for excluding esports and video games from the bill’s scope.

As currently drafted, the bill could mean that companies like Activision or third-party tournament organizers would require permits/licenses to operate in Nigeria, placing additional regulatory burdens on industry stakeholders involved in esports and gaming events.

This raises critical concerns for Nigeria’s esports ecosystem, which may face unintended restrictions, compliance costs, and regulatory hurdles if this bill is enforced without further clarification. A revision or exemption clause for esports and video gaming could be necessary to avoid stifling growth in the sector.

For example, some states are already proactively requiring licensing in this space such as Calabar State.  At best, the CGB should only apply if a betting arm is incorporated into esports related activities.

Last Updated on March 27, 2025