In an interview with iGB, Sean Coleman, the CEO of the Association of South African Bookmakers (SABA), provided clarity on a recent statement concerning the enforcement of laws against illegal gambling in South Africa. Coleman indicated that efforts are still primarily in the advocacy and stakeholder engagement phase. He stated, "At this stage, it remains largely within the advocacy and stakeholder engagement phase. The publication of our statement was intended to contribute constructively to what we believe is an increasingly important national policy discussion rather than to suggest that legislative amendments are imminent."
Coleman’s remarks bring attention to SABA's assertion that South Africa is hindered by an absence of laws enabling effective enforcement of illegal online gambling, rather than a deficit of prohibited laws.
In July, SABA released a statement recommending six legislative changes, which include amendments to the National Gambling Act, the Electronic Communications Act, the Financial Intelligence Centre Act, along with appealing for coordinated actions from the Reserve Bank and other authorities.
The magnitude of the illegal gambling issue was highlighted in a report by Yield Sec, commissioned by SABA, which estimated that illegal operators make up about 62% of the online gambling market in South Africa, resulting in over R50 billion in gross revenue being diverted abroad annually. The report also found that approximately 16 million South Africans had interacted with illegal gambling platforms over the past year.
Coleman emphasized the need for a collaborative approach, noting that the scope of the proposed reforms necessitates coordination across multiple sectors. He explained, "Our proposals touch on gambling regulation, electronic communications, payment systems and financial intelligence legislation, which means that a coordinated approach will ultimately be required."
SABA has welcomed a development from the National Gambling Board (NGB) regarding a public call for service providers to monitor, block, track, and report illegal gambling websites, announced on June 30, with submissions required by August 7, 2026. However, Coleman pointed out that SABA has not received further details beyond this public tender. He remarked, "Our understanding is that the National Gambling Board has commenced a procurement process for specialised services aimed at strengthening its capabilities in identifying and responding to illegal online gambling activities. Beyond what has been publicly tendered, we have not been provided with operational timelines or implementation details."
Regarding the blocking of gambling websites, Coleman underscored that this should not be viewed as a foolproof solution. He stated, "What is encouraging is that this reflects an acknowledgement that technology must form part of any meaningful enforcement strategy. Illegal operators are highly sophisticated, operate across multiple jurisdictions and can rapidly establish mirror and replacement websites. Manual enforcement mechanisms are therefore unlikely to be sufficient on their own."
He reiterated that while technology is an essential tool, it should not be seen as a standalone fix. "SABA has consistently advocated for a multi-layered approach that combines technology, legislation and coordinated enforcement. Website blocking, while important, should not be viewed as a silver bullet," he added. Coleman indicated that if executed effectively, technological measures could be an integral element of a comprehensive strategy rather than a singular solution.
SABA’s previous statement was in response to a position paper by the Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA), which suggested that any interruption of internet services for South Africans should occur within a clear legal framework balancing communication rights with potential harm. ISPA chair Sasha Booth-Beharilal remarked that such measures should be court-directed, publicly disclosed, and subject to periodic review.
When asked if ISPA had responded to SABA’s statement, Coleman replied, "Not that I am aware of," while stressing that ISPs should not be solely held responsible for combating illegal gambling. He stated, "Our position has never been that ISPs should bear sole responsibility for combating illegal gambling. Rather, we envisage a framework where appropriately authorised and legally mandated interventions are supported by clear legislative provisions and implemented in conjunction with other enforcement mechanisms."
Coleman believes the discussion should extend beyond the technical feasibility of blocking sites to the broader question of how to establish an effective, proportionate, and legally grounded enforcement model in South Africa, requiring collaboration among government, regulators, and industry stakeholders.
He differentiated South Africa’s challenges from those faced by countries like Australia and the UK. Coleman explained, “Firstly, gambling regulation is a concurrent competence in South Africa. This means gambling can operate across any of nine provincial licensing frameworks, whereas many international models benefit from a single national licensing authority for online gambling.” He noted that this regulatory complexity complicates enforcement and coordination efforts.
In addition, he mentioned that illegal operators have tailored their offerings to local consumers through regional languages, payment options, and aggressive marketing strategies. He said, “South Africa faces significant socio-economic challenges that make consumers particularly vulnerable to marketing narratives that present gambling as an alternative source of income or financial relief.” Consumer education, he emphasized, is essential.
Further complicating the situation, he pointed to the challenges posed by cross-border payment systems and cryptocurrency transactions, which allow operators to quickly adjust their services to evade enforcement actions. He highlighted the need for a comprehensive approach where consumers are better informed and find it difficult to access illegal operators.
Coleman was asked which intervention he would prioritize. While he refrained from suggesting any single measure as sufficient, he identified the establishment of a robust mechanism to disrupt access to illegal platforms as a crucial starting point. He stated, "If I were required to prioritise one intervention, it would be the establishment of an effective and legally certain mechanism to disrupt consumer access to illegal gambling platforms through coordinated technological enforcement measures." He stressed the need for a public registry of licensed operators and an expanded consumer awareness campaign alongside this.
He argued for immediate action to safeguard consumers against illegal operators that lack the protections provided by regulated gambling. Coleman concluded, "Reducing accessibility immediately advances consumer protection objectives while broader reforms are pursued." Yet, he cautioned that no one measure can be deemed a complete solution. He stressed, "Our objective should therefore not be to identify a single solution but rather to implement a practical sequence of complementary interventions that collectively make South Africa a significantly more difficult market for illegal offshore operators to access."
Coleman dismissed any notion that SABA's initiatives were aimed at protecting its members from competition. He stated, "This is not a debate about protecting licensed operators from competition. It is about ensuring that South African consumers receive the protections parliament intended when it created our regulated gambling framework. If consumers are gambling, they should do so within a regulated environment that provides responsible gambling safeguards, contributes to the fiscus and operates subject to South African law.
