The betting firms had challenged the levy<\/strong> under the Customs and Excise (Amendment) Act No. 11 of 2025, arguing it was unconstitutional<\/strong>. They raised concerns that the tax, introduced on August 8, was excessive, unclear<\/strong> and could affect their financial operations<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Oliver Nzala<\/strong>, ZRA Corporate Communications Manager said, in a press release: \u201cThe Constitutional Court has dismissed an application by Betbio Zambia Limited (trading as BetPawa) and Emerald Bay Limited (trading as Betway) seeking to restrain<\/strong> the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) and The Attorney General from imposing<\/strong> and collecting a newly introduced 10 per cent<\/strong> excise duty on betting stakes.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n BetPawa and Betway described the tax as \u201cexcessive, ambiguous, unimplementable<\/strong> and financially unsustainable\u201d and sought an interim injunction, arguing the burden exceeded their gross gaming revenue, the law lacked clarity<\/strong> and the mid-year introduction made compliance \u201cpractically impossible<\/strong>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ZRA countered the petitioners\u2019 claims, challenging their financial projections as speculative<\/strong> and unsupported by audited data. Nzala said: \u201cZRA maintained that the excise duty is a consumption tax<\/strong> borne by betting players, not operators, and that the law was enacted following stakeholder engagement.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The 10 per cent betting excise duty is part of the newly enacted law, giving ZRA full authority<\/strong> to collect it. The court ruling allows the tax to remain in effect<\/strong> while the constitutional challenge continues, reinforcing ZRA\u2019s statutory mandate <\/strong>and emphasising the public interest in revenue collection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court ruled the petitioners had failed<\/strong> to show a serious constitutional issue justifying suspension of the law. Judges reaffirmed the \u201cpay now, argue later\u201d principle and found no evidence that compliance<\/strong> would lead to insolvency. Nzala said: \u201cThe Court observed that the obligation to pay tax is not a legal impossibility.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court emphasised that public interest takes priority over the private concerns<\/strong> of the betting operators. Nzala added: \u201cThe Court emphasised that the Authority has a statutory duty<\/strong> to collect taxes on behalf of the government and that this duty is rooted in public interest which outweighs the private interest<\/strong> of the two betting companies.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The matter was presided over by Lady Justice Judy Zulu Mulongoti. With the dismissal of the interim injunction, betting players will continue paying<\/strong> the tax while the broader constitutional challenge proceeds. <\/p>\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/africa\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2025\/10\/ZAMBIA-KRA-1.jpg\")
Public interest prevails in ruling<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/focusgn.com\/africa\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2025\/08\/Emergence-of-strict-anti-corruption-regime-L-300x200.jpg\")
<\/p>\n