South Africa’s online betting industry has been thrown into needless panic by headlines proclaiming that online gambling is banned. Those headlines are wrong and dangerously so.
The recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment in Portapa (Pty) Ltd t/a Supabets v Casino Association of South Africa was not a nationwide prohibition on online gambling. It was a narrow, fact-specific ruling interpreting one clause in the Gauteng Gambling Act 4 of 1995. The Court confirmed only that a bookmaker licensed under that provincial statute cannot offer fixed-odds bets on roulette, which the same legislation defines as a casino game. Nothing more, nothing less.
What the Court actually decided
At the heart of the case lay a single question of statutory interpretation: whether the term “sporting event” in section 55 of the Gauteng Gambling Act could include roulette or other casino-type games. Supabets had been offering bets on live-streamed roulette from a studio in Lithuania, arguing that these outcomes were contingencies on which bookmakers could legally take bets.
The SCA rejected that argument. It held that the phrase “sporting event” in the Gauteng statute refers to “a ball game, race or other athletic or sporting contest.” Roulette is a casino game, not an athletic contest, and may only be offered under a casino licence. In other words, a Gauteng bookmaker may not take bets on the spin of a roulette wheel, particularly one broadcast from another jurisdiction.
That is the entirety of the ruling. It did not pronounce on the legality of online betting itself, nor on the status of bookmaker operations licensed under other provincial regimes. The suggestion that the SCA banned online gambling in South Africa is a misreading of the judgment and of the constitutional design of gambling regulation set out in the highest law of the land.
Gambling is a concurrent competence
The Constitution lists casinos, racing, gambling and wagering in Schedule 4, meaning that both national and provincial governments have legislative authority in this field. The National Gambling Act 7 of 2004 establishes national norms, definitions and an oversight framework, but it is the provincial licensing authorities that issue and regulate operator licences within their borders. Section 30(1)(a)(i) of the Act gives them exclusive jurisdiction to consider and issue such licences.
The Act defines “bets and wagers” broadly, allowing bookmakers to accept bets on any contingency (section 4(1)(b)), but it does not itself authorise those contingencies. Each province determines which types of events a bookmaker may offer. Gauteng has chosen to confine bookmakers to sporting events. The Western Cape, Mpumalanga and others have opted for a more flexible approach and language that accommodates the modern, converged marketplace.
That constitutional and statutory mosaic is deliberate. Provincial discretion allows regulation to respond to local economic conditions, social priorities and enforcement capacity. The SCA reaffirmed that autonomy; there is no conflict between the national and provincial statutes because they serve complementary roles. Where the Constitution grants concurrency, provincial legislation prevails unless uniform national legislation is required for reasons of national interest. To suggest otherwise would require a constitutional amendment supported by a two-thirds majority in Parliament, not an irresponsible media statement.
The scope of contingency and online betting
Under the National Act, a contingency is simply an event whose outcome is uncertain until it happens (section 1). Provincial authorities have long approved a wide range of contingencies for bookmaker operations, from sporting results to lottery draws and, in some provinces, virtual and electronic events that mimic casino games. These approvals are granted through formal board resolutions and licence conditions, supported by technical testing and responsible gambling compliance.
That framework is what enables licensed bookmakers in the Western Cape or Mpumalanga to lawfully provide online betting platforms. Their customers place bets through digital interfaces, but the underlying activity remains fixed-odds betting under a provincial bookmaker licence, and all outcomes are determined by a fixed-odds algorithm. It is not interactive gambling within the meaning of section 11 of the National Act, which prohibits unlicensed online casinos.
Conflating those two categories, as the National Gambling Board has done in its recent press statements, attempts to erase fifteen years of regulatory practice and jurisprudence. South Africa continues to prohibit unlicensed interactive casino gambling, but it explicitly permits licensed online betting under provincial bookmaker frameworks.
Why the NGB’s interpretation is flawed
The NGB’s claim that the SCA ruling applies to all provinces and bans online gambling ignores both constitutional structure and statutory text. The SCA interpreted one provincial law; it did not read down the National Act or the laws of other provinces. Nor did it find that accepting bets through an online platform is itself unlawful. Its concern was the subject matter of those bets, roulette, not the medium through which bets are placed.
By extrapolating the decision into a nationwide ban, the NGB risks undermining regulatory certainty, deterring investment and creating confusion among consumers who currently use legal, licensed online betting platforms. The role of a national board should be to coordinate and educate, not to rewrite provincial statutes through press releases.
A caution for operators
None of this means the industry can be complacent. The judgment exposes how blurred some marketing practices have become. A few operators have styled themselves as “online casinos” while holding only bookmaker licences. That language invites exactly the kind of conflation the SCA has now cautioned against. Operators should review their branding, website content and product descriptions to ensure they align with the specific contingencies authorised under their provincial licences.
Consistency between provincial boards on terminology would also help prevent further disputes. A harmonised understanding of what constitutes a sporting event, a virtual event or an electronic contingency would close much of the grey space that opportunists exploit. On the topic of opportunists, illegal offshore online casinos without any local oversight or tax liabilities continue to target vulnerable South Africans without any meaningful challenge from the NGB.
The broader policy context
This litigation dates back to 2014, when casinos sought to defend their turf against bookmakers entering digital spaces. Eleven years later, many casino groups themselves hold bookmaker licences and operate online betting platforms. The marketplace has converged, yet the legal architecture has not. The real policy task now is to modernise the framework so that technology, consumer protection and taxation evolve together rather than through piecemeal litigation.
Clarity, not confusion
The Portapa judgment is a reminder of the precision with which gambling statutes operate, not a signal of prohibition. South Africa’s provinces continue to license and regulate online betting lawfully and responsibly, and the provincial executives have outdone themselves in creating viable regimes from archaic legislation. The industry’s future depends not on panic but on careful compliance, accurate communication and an informed public debate grounded in constitutional reality rather than click-bait headlines.
- Wayne Lurie, Director, Lurie Inc Attorneys and CEO of SAROGA
- Lurie has practised gambling regulatory law exclusively for almost 24 years. He has been involved in the licensing of gambling activities, the interpretation of gambling regulations and landmark litigation both in South Africa and abroad, and has advised at every level of the gambling spectrum from multinational corporations to regulators.
