President Tinubu's Shocking Stance: No Signature on Central Gaming Bill!
In a bold move, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has declared his refusal to sign the Central Gaming Bill, a decision that has sparked intense debate. This bill, recently passed by the National Assembly, aims to empower the Federal Government to regulate lottery and gaming across states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
But here's where it gets controversial: Tinubu, a self-proclaimed 'constitutional democrat', firmly believes that lottery and gaming are not within the Federal Government's constitutional remit. He emphasized this during the All Progressives Congress (APC) National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting in Abuja, stating that he understands the boundaries of his executive and legislative powers.
The President's stance is a direct challenge to the National Assembly's actions on December 2, when they passed the bill, despite the Supreme Court's ruling in 2024. The court had invalidated the National Lottery Act, asserting that the Assembly lacked the authority to legislate on lottery and gaming matters.
Chief Wole Olanipekun, representing the Lagos State Government, sent a letter to the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), urging him to advise against presidential assent. The letter highlighted the Supreme Court's judgment, which deemed lottery a residual matter for state governments, not the federal government.
And this is the part most people miss: the Central Gaming Bill also intends to regulate online gaming and lottery, and activities across state lines, with revenues distributed by the federal government. This proposal contradicts constitutional provisions on revenue allocation, adding another layer of complexity to the debate.
Olanipekun's letter reminded the AGF of the Supreme Court's rejection of the argument that lottery and gaming are economic activities warranting federal regulation. Despite this, the National Assembly proceeded with the bill, raising questions about the balance of power between the federal and state governments.
As the controversy unfolds, the public is left wondering: is this a necessary check on federal power or an overreach by the President? What are the implications for the gaming industry and state autonomy? The comments section awaits your insights and opinions on this intriguing political and legal dilemma.
