The federation argues that the proposed 2026 sales-promotion regulations must respect the constitutional division of regulatory powers and the Supreme Court’s judgment on gaming.
By Wapcodehub9ja LIVE News Desk
The Federation of State Gaming Regulators of Nigeria (FSGRN) has challenged provisions in the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission’s (FCCPC) proposed Sales Promotion Regulations, 2026, arguing that the draft rules risk extending federal oversight into areas of gaming regulation that it says fall within state jurisdiction.
In its official position, the federation called for the proposed regulations to be reviewed to ensure they align with the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s judgment on the regulation of lotteries and games of chance.
The dispute centres on the extent to which the FCCPC can regulate sales promotions involving prize draws, lotteries and other gaming-related activities, particularly where such activities are already covered by state gaming laws.
The FCCPC published its draft amended regulations on September 30, 2026, inviting stakeholders and members of the public to submit comments and recommendations by October 20. The Commission said the proposed rules were intended to protect consumers and ensure fair conduct in promotional sales activities.
FSGRN cites Supreme Court ruling
FSGRN’s position relies on the Supreme Court judgment in Attorney-General of Lagos State and Others v. Attorney-General of the Federation and Others, Suit No. SC/1/2008, concerning the National Lottery Act and the regulation of gaming activities.
In a statement published in January 2025, the federation said the judgment affirmed state jurisdiction over gaming and lotteries within the relevant constitutional framework.
FSGRN has maintained that federal agencies should not use regulations or administrative procedures to exercise powers that it considers to belong to state authorities.
It argues that the legal status of gaming activities should be determined by their substance and the applicable law, rather than simply by describing them as sales promotions.
The federation’s position is that consumer protection and gaming regulation are related but distinct responsibilities. It maintains that measures intended to prevent misleading promotions should not automatically confer authority over gaming licensing and supervision.
Consumer protection and gaming oversight
The FCCPC’s proposed framework addresses sales promotions and related consumer-protection concerns. Its draft covers promotional activities across multiple sectors, including digital platforms and lotteries, and proposes registration and compliance requirements for promotions within its stated scope.
FSGRN’s objections raise questions about how those requirements would interact with state gaming legislation and the Supreme Court judgment cited by the federation.
The dispute also highlights the need to distinguish between federal consumer-protection functions and the licensing or regulation of activities that fall under state authority.
The FCCPC’s published notice described the document as a draft released for consultation. Its publication therefore marked a regulatory proposal open to stakeholder input, rather than, by itself, confirmation that every provision had entered into force.
Federation calls for review
FSGRN has urged the FCCPC to reconsider provisions it believes conflict with state gaming powers and to remove references it considers inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision, including references to the National Lottery Act, 2005, and the National Lottery Regulatory Commission.
The federation says the review should provide greater legal clarity, prevent overlapping regulatory demands and respect the constitutional structure governing gaming activities in Nigeria.
The matter has implications for gaming operators, businesses running prize-based promotions and regulators responsible for enforcing consumer-protection and gaming laws.
However, FSGRN’s statement represents its interpretation of the relevant legal provisions. The statement alone does not establish that a court has separately invalidated the FCCPC’s draft regulations.
The eventual legal and regulatory position will depend on the final wording of any adopted regulations, the applicable legislation and any authoritative judicial determination.
Be the first to comment