The National Gambling Board (NGB) has moved to appoint a service provider capable of monitoring, blocking, tracking and reporting unlicensed online gambling sites aimed at South African consumers. Published on 30 June and amended on 17 July, the expression of interest (EOI) pushed its closing date from 7 August to 4 September 2026 after a bidder briefing on 15 July. The initiative targets a market that, by industry estimates, funnels tens of billions of rand out of the country each year. And it arrives before South Africa has settled a legal framework for online gambling at all.
What the EOI Means for Operators and ISPs
The procurement is less a contract than a probe. The NGB frames it as a scoping exercise, and its business implications ripple across regulators, internet providers and both licensed and offshore operators.
- No award is guaranteed. The EOI commits the board to nothing beyond gathering proposals from providers willing to be invited into a later Request for Proposal or tender process.
- Bidders are being asked to identify revenue streams that could sustain the service themselves, shifting some commercial risk onto the provider.
- ISPs are exposed. South African law does not currently oblige internet service providers to block unlicensed gambling sites, and the industry is resisting any obligation imposed without legislation.
- The regulator wants a standing capability, not a one-time purge, capable of re-blocking sites each time they resurface.
- Licensed operators, who lose ground to offshore rivals, stand to benefit if enforcement gains teeth.
A Market Where Illegal Operators Hold the Majority
The scale is what makes this urgent. Research by Yield Sec, commissioned by the South African Bookmakers’ Association’s advocacy for a regulated betting market, attributes roughly 62% of the country’s online gambling activity to unlicensed operators. More than R50 billion (about $3.1 billion) in gross gambling revenue leaves the country each year, the study found.
Interactive gambling remains prohibited in South Africa. The 2008 National Gambling Amendment Act was meant to create a licensing regime for it. It never came into operation. The EOI notes bluntly that illegal interactive gambling has continued “with impunity to the express prohibition” (a line that reads less like procurement boilerplate than a regulator conceding it has been outrun).
In June, acting chief executive Lungile Dukwana told parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Trade, Industry and Competition that no national policy position on interactive gambling had been finalised. The board is engaging the National Gambling Policy Council on the question. Speaking to Business Day TV, Dukwana described the procurement plainly: “We want to understand what is in the market.”
How the Proposed Blocking System Would Work
Under the EOI, the successful provider would profile illegal gambling sites targeting South Africans by country of origin, licence status and ownership. It would then block those sites, report them to the NGB for referral to law enforcement, and keep watch for reappearances.
That tracking function matters because the current approach fails on persistence. Dukwana said sites taken down with help from Google and Meta simply resurface. “They would appear the following day and be with something else,” he said. The board grounds its authority in the National Gambling Act, citing its duty to help provincial licensing authorities detect unlicensed gambling.
ISPA Pushes Back
Days after the EOI surfaced, the Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA) published a position paper opposing administratively ordered blocking. The paper followed a formal NGB request to the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies to block offshore platforms.
ISPA’s objection is procedural, not absolute. “ISPA’s position is that any disruption of internet services to South Africans should be done only as part of a clear legislative framework that balances the right to communicate against the potential harm of problematic content,” chair Sasha Booth-Beharilal told TechCentral. The association accepts that some blocking may be necessary but insists on a clear legal basis, judicial oversight and time-limited obligations.
It also questioned whether blocking works at all. Domain-name blocking is trivial for technically capable users to bypass. IP-address blocking, ISPA warned, carries collateral damage: it cited a European court-ordered block of a handful of shared IP addresses that knocked out more than half a million unrelated sites. Deep packet inspection, the association added, is “typically used only by autocratic governments in countries where citizens do not have the same rights enjoyed by South Africans.”
Limited Capacity, Ambitious Scope
The gap between what the board wants and what it can do is stark. In a written reply to the National Assembly, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition said the NGB had allocated two staff members and R596,000 to identifying illegal gambling sites in the 2025/26 financial year. The board’s database held 90 illegal sites, all operated by companies licensed overseas.
The results so far are modest. Of the 10 sites the NGB referred to Google Africa for removal from search results in 2024/25, none had been removed at the time of the reply. The board’s annual report records that 23 of the 90 blocked operators restricted access to their own sites after NGB intervention. Punters can still reach them using evasive technologies.
| Metric | Figure |
|---|---|
| Estimated share of illegal online gambling | ~62% of activity |
| Annual revenue flowing offshore | R50bn+ ($3.1bn) |
| Budget for identifying illegal sites (2025/26) | R596,000, plus two staff assigned to the task |
| Illegal sites in NGB database | 90 (all licensed overseas) |
| Sites referred to Google Africa, then removed | 10 referred / 0 removed |
Why ‘Not a Silver Bullet’ Is the Consensus
SABA chief executive Sean Coleman welcomed the procurement while warning against overreliance on it. “Website blocking, while important, should not be viewed as a silver bullet,” he told iGaming Business, pointing to how quickly illegal operators spin up mirror and replacement sites.
The EOI itself acknowledges the difficulty. It asks bidders to detail their methodology, name partner stakeholders, list required approvals and consent letters, and explain how they would tackle the challenges the NGB already faces. It even asks them to identify revenue streams to keep the service running. A demanding brief, offered with no promise of a contract at the end.
The NGB declined to answer detailed questions, citing the active procurement. “The matters raised relate directly to an Expression of Interest process that is currently under way,” it said, adding that further comment could risk “unequal access to information.” What remains less clear is whether a blocking capability can outpace operators who rebuild overnight.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is online gambling legal in South Africa?
Interactive online gambling remains prohibited. The 2008 National Gambling Amendment Act attempted to create a licensing regime for it, but the relevant provisions never came into force, leaving the market without a legal framework.
Does the EOI mean a blocking system will definitely be built?
No. The EOI explicitly does not commit the NGB to awarding a contract. It gathers proposals to help shape a possible future Request for Proposal or tender, with no obligation to proceed.
Why does ISPA oppose the blocking request?
ISPA argues that blocking internet access requires clear legislation, judicial oversight and time limits. It also disputes the effectiveness of blocking, noting that domain-level blocks are easily circumvented and IP-based blocks can disable unrelated sites.
How big is the illegal gambling problem?
Research pegs illegal operators at roughly 62% of online gambling activity, with over R50 billion in gross revenue leaving South Africa each year.
What happens next?
The EOI closes on 4 September 2026. The NGB says it will communicate the way forward once submissions are in, using responses to draft specifications for any eventual tender.
