South Africa's Gambling Bill faces a reckoning as provincial powers clash

A CRUCIAL piece of legislation aimed at modernising South Africa’s gambling regulation has become mired in procedural delays and intergovernmental conflict, raising questions about provincial autonomy, revenue security, and the social impact of an expanding gambling industry.

The National Gambling Amendment Bill, first introduced in 2018, has lapsed twice and now faces renewed resistance from provincial authorities. They warn that the proposed law threatens their constitutional powers, creates costly bureaucratic duplication, and jeopardises vital income streams.

Gambling addiction has taken a devastating toll across South Africa, disproportionately affecting poor and vulnerable communities. With economic hardship driving many toward the illusion of quick wins, reports indicate that South Africans wager over R1 trillion annually — R700 billion of which is spent on sports betting alone.

This crisis is particularly acute among low-income households, where gambling losses deepen existing financial strain. According to Old Mutual’s head of financial education, John Manyike, 36% of gamblers would bet to pay off debts or cover expenses — a figure that rose to 41% among low-income earners.

The consequences extend beyond finances. A University of Cape Town study cited by IOL found that pathological gamblers were five to ten times more likely to have a history of suicide attempts than non-gamblers, highlighting the severe mental health toll.

Meanwhile, during a recent briefing to the Western Cape Provincial Parliament’s Standing Committee on Finance, officials revealed deep concerns over the Bill’s current form. The Western Cape Gambling and Racing Board (WCGRB) lodged “strong objections”, arguing that key clauses “encroach on provincial competencies, create duplication, and threaten provincial revenue”.

Central to the dispute is the proposed National Central Electronic Monitoring System (NCEMS), which the Bill sought to extend to all forms of gambling. The WCGRB’s Legal Manager, Liezel Hartman, asserted that applying the NCEMS universally would “usurp the powers of Provincial Licensing Authorities” and impose unnecessary costs on the industry.

The Board also opposes the creation of a national inspectorate with expanded powers, viewing it as an infringement on provincial authority. Additionally, it contests a clause directing forfeited unlawful winnings to a national body, insisting that such proceeds should remain with the province as per existing legislation.

The Bill’s journey has been marked by significant policy reversals. Originally, it proposed converting the National Gambling Board into a National Gambling Regulator led by a chief executive officer. However, the final mediated version, known as Version D, has reverted to retaining the Board structure.

This reversal is not merely administrative. Legal advisors warned that it constituted a material amendment that might trigger a fresh constitutional requirement for public consultation. Advocate Mpho Khoele, Legal Advisor for the WCPP, argued that reverting to a Board fundamentally would alter the governance structure and accountability of the national gambling authority, necessitating renewed public participation.

Parliament’s Legal Advisor, Advocate Frank Jenkins, confirmed that while public participation was not required during the mediation stage, provinces may choose to undertake it. However, he emphasised that the mediated bill was final: “No further amendments may be introduced at this point.”

This constraint has raised procedural concerns. Committee members expressed frustration with the muddled process, citing a “lack of a clear deadline” from the National Council of Provinces and significant unresolved conflicts regarding duplication and provincial revenue authority.

Faced with conflicting legal advice and substantive concerns, the Committee deferred any decision. It will first seek clarity on timelines from the NCOP and give strong consideration to initiating a public participation process, potentially beginning in February 2026.

What began in 2015 as an effort to harmonise and modernise gambling regulation has devolved into a seven-year legislative odyssey marked by lapses, revivals, and fundamental disagreements. The resulting impasse not only stalls regulatory reform but leaves critical issues of provincial authority and public revenue in limbo.

Meanwhile, in townships and low-income households, gambling continues to trap individuals in cycles of debt and despair — a social cost perpetually weighed against the industry’s economic benefits. As the Bill remains unresolved, the stakes for coherent national governance grow higher by the day.

Get the real story on the go: Follow the Sunday Independent on WhatsApp.