The Lagos State Government has filed a fresh motion before the Supreme Court, seeking to commence contempt proceedings against the National Assembly over its alleged disregard of a subsisting judgment that voided federal legislation on lottery and gaming.
In the suit filed through the state’s Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Lagos is praying the apex court to grant leave to issue Form 48 — a legal notice warning the National Assembly against acts considered to be in defiance of the court’s authority.
The motion, according to court filings by Lagos’ counsel, Mr. Bode Olanipekun (SAN), follows the ongoing consideration of the Central Gaming Bill by the federal legislature, which the state contends breaches the Supreme Court’s judgment in Attorney-General of Lagos State & Ors. v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors. (SC.1/2008) delivered on November 22, 2024.
Lagos insists that several provisions of the proposed bill — especially clauses 7 and 21 through 64 — deal with lottery and gaming, areas which the court had ruled to be within the exclusive purview of state governments.
The affidavit filed in support of the motion argued that the new bill replicates sections of the now-voided National Lottery Act, which was struck down by the Supreme Court last year. It noted that both the old law and the new proposal define “lottery” and “online gaming” in similar terms, encompassing games of chance or skill requiring licensing.
The state also drew attention to Clause 62 of the proposed legislation, which seeks to preserve actions previously taken under the nullified law — a move Lagos described as a “deliberate affront” to the apex court’s judgment.
The government further emphasised that since the court’s 2024 verdict, there had been no constitutional amendment to expand the National Assembly’s powers to legislate on gaming or lottery, which remain absent from both the Exclusive and Concurrent Legislative Lists in the 1999 Constitution.
The 2024 ruling had held that the National Assembly lacked the authority to legislate on lottery and gaming, rejecting claims that such powers could be implied from “trade and commerce” on the Exclusive List or from the interstate nature of gaming operations.
