If you speak to any serious gaming operator in Nigeria today, you will hear a familiar line: “We are not afraid of regulation. We are afraid of inconsistency.”
Since the Supreme Court decision made it clear that gaming regulation now sits squarely with the states, Nigeria’s regulatory map has changed.
There is no longer a federal licensing authority for gaming. Every operator must deal directly with state commissions. In principle, that clarity should make things easier.
In practice, it has created a new challenge: alignment.
Nigeria now operates a fully state-driven gaming framework. Each state has the power to license, monitor, and tax operators within its jurisdiction. That is constitutionally sound. But gaming technology does not stop at state borders.
A player in Enugu can log into a platform hosted in Lagos. A bettor in Rivers can place a wager while traveling in Abuja. Digital platforms are built to move freely; regulation is built around geography.
That is where the friction begins.
An operator may be licensed in multiple states, each with slightly different reporting formats, tax models, technical integration standards, and compliance expectations.
One state may calculate Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR) one way. Another may apply different definitions or timelines. Some require real-time integration with regulatory platforms. Others still rely on periodic manual reporting.
None of this is illegal. But it can be confusing, costly, and difficult to scale.
For operators, the challenge is operational. They must adapt systems to meet varying state requirements. They must generate different reports from the same backend engine.
They must reconcile tax calculations across jurisdictions, sometimes using different definitions of the same revenue stream.
For regulators, the challenge is visibility. Without coordination among states, there is a risk of duplicated oversight in some areas and blind spots in others. A transaction that clearly belongs to one state’s jurisdiction may not be easily distinguishable if location tagging is weak or if systems are not harmonised.
This is not an argument for returning to federal licensing. That chapter is closed. Instead, it is an argument for smarter collaboration among states.
Harmonisation does not mean surrendering authority. It simply means agreeing on shared technical standards. If states adopt similar reporting templates, consistent GGR definitions, and compatible digital monitoring systems, operators can comply more efficiently while regulators maintain full control.
Technology can make this easier. If state regulatory platforms are interoperable, able to exchange verified compliance data securely, duplication reduces.
A transaction recorded in one state’s system can be recognised by another without fresh disputes. Trust grows when numbers are verifiable across systems.
Clear communication is equally important. Publishing transparent tax formulas, compliance manuals, and technical guidelines in simple language removes guesswork.
When operators understand exactly how revenue is computed and what data must be submitted, disagreements become less emotional and more technical.
Nigeria’s state-driven model can work, and work well, if coordination becomes a priority. The industry is too large, too digital, and too economically important to be slowed down by avoidable inconsistencies.
The goal should be simple: a system where a compliant operator can expand across states without rewriting its entire backend every time.
A system where regulators can verify revenue accurately without prolonged disputes. A system where players experience stability regardless of which state they are physically in.
State control is now the law of the land. The next step is making that system function smoothly in a borderless digital market.
