NGB Plan to Block Illegal Gambling Websites: What It Means for SA Players

What the National Gambling Board has actually announced

On 30 June 2026 the National Gambling Board (NGB) published an expression of interest, usually shortened to EOI, asking service providers to offer a monitoring, tracking, blocking and reporting solution for illegal online gambling websites. The NGB's own notice describes it as a solution "to detect and prevent illicit gambling activities undertaken online". On 17 July the board published an erratum that amended the document.

According to iGaming Business, the closing date moved from 7 August to 4 September 2026 after a briefing session for prospective bidders on 15 July. We could not find a public announcement of what the NGB received or decided after that date, so the status today is unclear. Treat anything that claims the blocking has started with caution until the NGB says so itself.

The scope is wider than the word "blocking" suggests. As reported, the provider would monitor and profile illegal sites, recording details such as country of origin, licence status and ownership. It would then block the sites it identifies, report them to the NGB for referral to law enforcement, and keep tracking them so that a site is blocked again if it returns under a new address.

The NGB has described the exercise as one of scoping. Acting chief executive Lungile Dukwana told Business Day TV, "We want to understand what is in the market." That matters, because an expression of interest is not a tender award. It is a way for the board to learn what the market can supply before it writes a formal request for proposals.

What an expression of interest does and does not commit the NGB to

Readers sometimes see the word tender and assume a contract has been signed. Based on the iGaming Business report of the document, that is not the case here. The EOI does not commit the board to awarding a contract. It invites providers who would be willing to take part in a later request for proposals, and the NGB says it will use the responses to draft that request "without any restrictions or obligation to the service provider".

At this stage bidders only need to send a company profile, a tax clearance certificate if they are not an international provider, and any relevant certifications or licences. The document also asks them to explain their method, name the partners they would work with, list the approvals and letters of consent they would need, and say how they would cover costs.

In practical terms there are at least three more steps before any website could be blocked under this programme: the board has to decide what it wants, run a formal procurement, and then have a provider build and operate the service. Each step takes time, and the middle one can be challenged by unsuccessful bidders. Anyone expecting offshore casino sites to disappear from South African screens next month is likely to be disappointed.

The wider legal position has not changed either. The 2008 National Gambling Amendment Act tried to create a licensing regime for interactive gambling but never came into operation, and in June Dukwana told Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Trade, Industry and Competition that no national policy position on interactive gambling had been finalised.

How the NGB finds illegal sites today, and how little it has to do it with

Some of the most useful facts in this story come from an official source. In a written reply to Parliament (question 2194, put by Mr S S Zibi of Rise Mzansi), the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition passed on the NGB's answers about how it currently works.

• How sites are identified: by relying on third-party information, mainly cases where unlawful winnings are confiscated and the website is named on a prescribed NGB form, plus complaints through a dedicated email address and the NGB fraud hotline.
• How a site is classed as illegal: the NGB asks the relevant province whether the operator is registered in South Africa. If the operator is licensed outside the country, it is treated as an illegal operator.
• Resources: two staff members and R596,000 for identifying illegal gambling websites in the 2025/26 financial year, including travel and Legal Enforcement Forum meetings.
• The current list: 90 illegal gambling websites, all registered and licensed overseas.

The reply also says the NGB did not engage the operators of those sites, and that its blocking process involves the stakeholders that provide the platform for a site to operate in South Africa rather than the operator itself. For the 2024/25 financial year the NGB forwarded ten websites to Google Africa for removal from search results. At the time of the reply, none had been removed.

iGaming Business adds that the NGB's annual report records 23 of the 90 operators blocking access to their own sites after NGB intervention, while noting that players can still reach them using evasive technologies. Put together, the numbers describe a small team with a modest budget facing a very large and fast-moving market. The EOI is partly an attempt to close that gap with outside technology.

Why internet providers are pushing back

The Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA) published a position paper on internet blocking in early July. Its release followed news that the NGB had formally asked the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies to implement blocking against offshore platforms. ISPA accepts that some illegal content may have to be blocked, but it objects to doing so without a clear legal framework.

ISPA chair Sasha Booth Beharilal said, "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." The paper sets out five principles, which ISPA summarises as follows:

• blocking requests should come from a court or judge, not an administrative or regulatory body;
• blocking obligations should be publicly disclosed;
• measures should be temporary and reviewed regularly;
• an ISP should not be forced to modify its network or install extra equipment;
• the costs of blocking should be allocated fairly, with providers able to recover their actual cost.

The association also describes three technical routes and their weaknesses. Domain name blocking is the simplest, but technically proficient users can get round it. IP address blocking often catches unrelated sites on the same address; ISPA cites a report by the Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI) in which a court-ordered block of a handful of shared IP addresses in Europe took down more than half a million unrelated sites. Packet inspection is the most invasive and costly route, and ISPA says it is typically used only in autocratic states.

None of this means blocking is off the table. It means the argument is moving from whether the NGB wants it to who has the legal authority to order it, and that is a question for the legislature rather than a procurement document.

What the gambling industry wants alongside blocking

The South African Bookmakers' Association (SABA) has been the loudest supporter of the plan. Its chief executive, Sean Coleman, told iGaming Business that "website blocking, while important, should not be viewed as a silver bullet", because illegal operators can set up mirror and replacement sites quickly.

Moneyweb reports that SABA has proposed six interventions. They include amending the National Gambling Act to give legal certainty on what counts as illegal offshore gambling and to clarify the reach of the law beyond South Africa's borders, and amending the Electronic Communications Act so that authorised regulators have a clear power to block websites. SABA also wants payment disruption and advertising restrictions, and stronger enforcement against local facilitators. It describes blocking as a last resort within that wider strategy and warns that broad, unregulated blocking powers could cause over-blocking of legitimate sites.

Readers should keep one point in mind when weighing these figures. SABA represents licensed bookmakers, who benefit if the offshore market shrinks. The headline numbers in this debate, that roughly 62% of online gambling activity goes to illegal operators and that more than R50 billion in gross gambling revenue leaves the country each year, come from Yield Sec research commissioned by SABA. That does not make them wrong, but they are an industry estimate rather than an NGB audit, and Moneyweb's related line that an estimated 16 million South Africans engaged with illegal platforms in the past year is given without a stated source, so treat it with the same care.

Moneyweb also notes that National Treasury proposed a 20% tax on gross gambling revenue from online and offshore operators last year, and that restrictions on gambling advertising are on the table. Deputy Minister Zuko Godlimpi is quoted from the NGB's strategic plan as saying the board will work with law enforcement, financial institutions and digital service providers. Blocking is one tool in a longer list.

What this means for South African players

The first thing to be clear about is the legal baseline. South Africa has no licensing regime for online casino games, which means no operator holds a South African licence to offer them remotely. Many sites that accept South African players are licensed in other jurisdictions. That is the difference between a site that is not licensed in South Africa and a site that merely accepts South African players, and it is a distinction we keep on every casino page. You can read the background on our South Africa gambling law page.

A blocking programme, if it goes ahead, would act on access to the sites. As reported, the NGB's stated aim is to disrupt operators and pass information to law enforcement, and the board does not engage the operators directly. Nothing in the material we reviewed describes a penalty aimed at ordinary players. We have not found a source that settles that question either way, so we do not give legal advice on it.

What blocking would not do is give players any protection. A site that disappears behind a block, or reappears under a new name, can leave a player with a balance and no clear route to a regulator. The NGB's own parliamentary reply shows it deals with enforcement against sites, not with complaints from players about offshore operators. The practical risks of unlicensed play are therefore unchanged: weaker dispute options, uncertain payout terms, and fake apps and clone sites that copy well-known brand names.

Players who want to check a site should use what exists today. The NGB launched a verified operators tool, which we covered in our news report, and the board's earlier warning about illegal online betting is summarised in this brief. If you use any gambling site, set deposit limits first, and read our responsible gambling page for the warning signs and where to get help.

What to watch next

Several things will show whether this plan turns into something real. None of them has a confirmed date, so treat the list as things to check rather than a timetable.

• The outcome of the EOI: whether the NGB publishes a request for proposals, and what it says about the legal basis for blocking. The board has said further information will follow once the submission process has concluded.
• The role of the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies: the NGB asked it to implement blocking, and ISPA wants any order to come from a court. How those two positions are reconciled will decide who can order a block.
• Amendments to the National Gambling Act: the 2008 amendments never came into operation, and the board is still engaging the National Gambling Policy Council on interactive gambling. A national policy position would change the picture more than any technology contract.
• The new board: Cabinet approved a new set of National Gambling Board members after twelve years, covered in our earlier brief, which may influence how fast this moves.
• Payments and advertising: SABA's proposals on payment disruption and advertising limits could reach players sooner than website blocking does.

The court angle is also worth following. A recent Supreme Court of Appeal ruling on casino-style bets at sports betting sites, which we summarised in this brief, shows that the courts are already shaping what counts as lawful online gambling in South Africa.

We will update this post if the NGB announces an outcome, and we will say plainly when something is still unconfirmed.

Our reading: a useful step with limits that everyone involved admits

Taken together, the sources agree on more than the headlines suggest. The NGB says it needs more capacity. SABA says blocking is not a silver bullet. ISPA says blocking is easy to get around and needs a legal framework. The NGB's own numbers show a team of two and a list of 90 sites. Nobody in this debate is claiming that blocking alone will end offshore gambling.

That points to a likely outcome of gradual, partial disruption rather than a clean switch-off: some sites made harder to reach, some returning under new names, and a long argument over who has the power to order it. This is our reading of the evidence, not a prediction the sources make.

For readers of this site, the useful takeaway is simple. The rules for online casino games have not changed, no South African licence exists for them, and the enforcement tools are still being designed. If you play, treat gambling as paid entertainment with real risk, only use money you can afford to lose, and stay alert to fake sites. We will keep tracking this story and the wider policy debate.

Frequently Asked Questions