The response follows a formal notice issued by the NGB to Provincial Licensing Authorities (PLAs), clarifying its position on Remote Gambling Servers<\/strong> (RGS). The regulator\u2019s position centres on the view that RGS may fall within the scope of prohibited interactive gambling under South African law. It has indicated that systems used to facilitate remote or online gambling activity may meet the legal definition of \u201cinteractive games\u201d, which are not permitted under the current framework, placing such infrastructure under increased scrutiny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n SABA CEO Sean Coleman<\/strong> delivered a direct legal challenge to the regulator\u2019s authority, stating: \u201cSections 33 and 34<\/strong> of the National Act do not empower the NGB to issue any authoritative statements regarding the prevailing legislative and\/or regulatory requirements of the National Act or any other legislation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n He added that the regulator\u2019s position is fundamentally flawed<\/strong>, saying: \u201cAll the directives which the NGB has recently given to provincial licensing authorities (\u201cPLAs\u201d) are based on a single assumption<\/strong>, which is presented as a fact.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The association also warned against the broader implications of the regulator\u2019s stance, with Coleman stating that \u201cthe legitimate operations<\/strong> of licensed bookmakers should not unjustifiably be portrayed as being in defiance of the law\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the centre of the dispute is the classification of bookmaker activity<\/strong> under the National Gambling Act. Coleman said: \u201cIt follows that if a bet or wager offered by a bookmaker is not a gambling game, then it also cannot be an interactive game.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n He further rejected the regulator\u2019s position, adding: \u201cThere is accordingly no legal basis <\/strong>for the contention that bookmakers anywhere in the country are making interactive games available for play by the public, or that their operations are unlawful when in reality<\/strong>, what they are offering are fixed odds contingency betting, as they are entitled to do in terms of the National Act<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n SABA also challenged the regulator\u2019s interpretation of betting technology. Coleman said: \u201cThe NGB notice assumes that the use of Remote Gaming Servers is indicative of interactive gambling. This assumption evinces a misunderstanding <\/strong>of modern gambling system architecture.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n He explained: \u201cA Remote Game Server is not a gambling activity in itself. It is a software architecture <\/strong>component used to host game logic, outcome determination or event processing functions within a regulated gambling system<\/strong>. Remote Game Servers form part of a distributed system architecture and are not visible to, or directly interacted with by, the player participating in a wager.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to SABA, this infrastructure supports licensed betting operations by hosting game logic<\/strong>, outcome determination and event processing functions within a regulated system and is not directly accessed by players.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSABA believes that the interests of fairness and accuracy<\/strong> demand, firstly, that the betting public should be placed in an informed position<\/strong> regarding the provisions of the applicable law,\u201d said SABA. <\/p>\n\n\nSABA defends lawful betting<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/africa\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2025\/10\/onlinecasino-300x200.jpg\")
<\/p>\n