Legal experts dispute National Gambling Board's interpretation of Supreme Court ruling on online gambling

Leading attorneys and the South African Responsible Online Gambling Association have criticised the National Gambling Board (NGB) for their “misrepresentation” of a recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruling, warning that this could mislead the public and the betting industry.

In recent media statements, Whitesmans Attorneys founder, Garron Whitesman and Wayne Lurie, director of Lurie Inc Attorneys and CEO of South African Responsible Online Gambling Association dismissed claims that online gambling had been banned as a result of the SCA ruling.

The dispute follows the NGB’s media statement and its 2024/25 Annual Report, which referenced the SCA’s judgment in Portapa (Pty) Ltd t/a Supabets and Others v Casino Association of South Africa and Another which was handed down last month.

The case dealt with whether Gauteng-licensed bookmakers could legally offer fixed-odds bets on the outcome of casino games such as roulette.

Explaining the matter, Lurie said the SCA had found that 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.

In its statement, the NGB welcomed the judgment, saying it affirmed “the deliberate South African gambling policy approach to the regulation of casinos, betting, limited payout machines, and bingo as separate modes of gambling.”

The Board said that “it is unlawful for bookmakers to offer fixed-odds bets on the outcome of a casino game, including the game of roulette” under the Gauteng Gambling Act of 1995.

The NGB added that the ruling “extends to all bookmakers across the country,” arguing that online casino-style games constitute “interactive gambling,” which remains prohibited under section 11 of the National Gambling Act.

Acting CEO Lungile Dukwana warned that “any person or entity offering such games is engaging in unlawful gambling operations,” adding that winnings from illegal gambling “will be isolated and confiscated.”

However, Whitesman said the NGB’s claim that the SCA judgment applies nationwide is incorrect. He said the ruling concerns “only an exceptional situation applicable to bookmakers licensed under the Gauteng Gambling Act,” which limits betting to sporting events.

“This limitation does not apply to bookmakers licensed in other provinces under their respective provincial laws,” he said.

“The NGB’s stated position is particularly concerning because it is just wrong in law. If left uncorrected, it is likely to mislead both the public and industry participants. It must be made clear that the position adopted by provincial gambling boards is correct and lawful.”

Whitesman said that residents of any province “may lawfully place bets on casino-style contingencies with bookmakers licensed in any province in South Africa.”

He emphasised that the SCA “made it clear that it is the provincial gambling authorities, not the NGB, that determine what types of bets their licensees may offer.”

“The Supabets ruling does not make online betting on casino-style games with South African licensed bookmakers unlawful,” he said.

“Players in Gauteng may still lawfully place bets on casino-style contingencies with bookmakers licensed elsewhere in South Africa.”

Lurie said that the NGB’s claim that the SCA ruling applies to all provinces and bans online gambling ignored 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.”

THE MERCURY