State gaming regulators ask FCCPC to remove lottery powers from draft rules

The Federation of State Gaming Regulators (FSGRN) asked the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) to remove provisions on lotteries and prize draws from the draft Sales Promotion (Amended) Regulations, 2026, in a statement published on 21 October 2026. The FSGRN says the draft confers federal licensing and supervisory powers over promotional lotteries—powers it argues are barred by a Supreme Court injunction issued in November 2024.

What the FSGRN is asking for

The FSGRN demands an immediate review and amendment of the draft. It requires that the FCCPC withdraw “any provision which, in its view, invades the constitutional powers of the states over lotteries, promotional lotteries, draws and gambling”, including all references to the National Lottery Act, 2005 and to the National Lottery Regulatory Commission (NLRC). The federation also asked the Attorney-General of the Federation to ensure that federal agencies comply with the Supreme Court judgment.

The statement was signed by Olajide Boladuro, Director-General of the Oyo State Lottery and Gaming Board and Vice Chairman of the FSGRN, and appeared as branded content in the Nigerian press on 21 October 2026.

The draft, its timetable and other criticisms

The FCCPC published the draft Sales Promotion (Amended) Regulations, 2026 on 30 September 2026. The public consultation closed on 20 October 2026; the FSGRN statement appeared on 21 October 2026, one day after the consultation deadline.

The proposed text amends the existing sales-promotion rules and changes the notification fees that would apply. The FCCPC said the consultation sought input on consumer protection and fairness in promotional practices.

The FSGRN was not the only critical voice. The Foundation for Consumer Freedom Advancement (FCFA) submitted comments supporting measures against fraudulent promotions but warned that certain requirements could capture ordinary advertising and discounts. FCFA’s concerns are distinct from the constitutional objections raised by the FSGRN.

Specific parts of the draft challenged by the FSGRN

The federation points to specific passages in the draft:

• Regulation 1 would extend the rules to lotteries, digital platforms and promotional activity across all sectors of the economy.

• Regulation 3 would state that promotions that amount to lotteries under the National Lottery Act, 2005 must comply with that law and seek approval from the NLRC.

• Part II would require registration of sales promotions with the FCCPC, with fees, registration certificates and powers to reject, suspend or revoke registrations.

• Part VIII would allow the FCCPC to supervise draws, monitor winner selection, demand information about random-selection algorithms and order a redraw if it suspects irregularities.

• Regulation 64 provides for cooperation between the FCCPC and the NLRC where a promotion contains elements of a lottery.

The FSGRN argues that these powers exceed consumer-protection functions and amount to responsibilities of a gaming regulator when applied to promotional lotteries. In its statement the federation summarised its objection with a phrase repeated in the communiqué:

"A lottery does not cease to be a lottery merely because it is described as a sales promotion."

The Supreme Court judgment underpinning the dispute

The FSGRN cites as its legal basis the Supreme Court decision of 22 November 2024 in Attorney-General of Lagos State & Ors v. Attorney-General of the Federation & Ors, Suit No. SC/1/2008. In November 2024 the Supreme Court struck down the application of the National Lottery Act, 2005 in the states affected by the suit, granting what the FSGRN cites as Relief/Declaration No. 9: a perpetual injunction preventing “the Federal Government and its agencies” from exercising the challenged powers over lotteries within those states.

The Federation interprets that, because the FCCPC is a federal agency, the injunction bars it from assuming regulatory, licensing or supervisory powers over lotteries in the states. In its statement the FSGRN stated the following principle:

"What the Federal Government has been restrained from doing directly cannot lawfully be accomplished indirectly through another federal agency, a different regulatory instrument or a change in administrative terminology."

Other sources have described the Supreme Court injunction in narrower terms, as a restriction on federal exercise of the law in the plaintiff states; the FSGRN maintains the broader reading and seeks correction in the draft.

Practical consequences for promotions and players

The FSGRN does not dispute the FCCPC’s capacity to protect consumers, but it draws a distinction between protecting a promotion participant and authorising or supervising the lottery mechanism itself. According to the federation, state authorities already oversee promotional lotteries, prize draws, game advertising, player protection and prize payments.

As long as the draft remains a proposal, there are no immediate regulatory changes. The FSGRN warned that, if the text were applied as drafted, operators of promotional lotteries could be required to register with the FCCPC and obtain NLRC approval in addition to existing state licences, which would mean duplicated requirements, higher compliance costs and potential regulatory uncertainty.

The article was last updated on 23 October 2026. At the time of the update the FCCPC had not published a response to the FSGRN statement and it was not known whether the final regulations would retain the lottery provisions.