for early access to the latest igaming videos!
and get the latest igaming news first!
The South African Bookmakers’ Association (SABA) has finally responded to the National Gambling Board’s (NGB) recent statement on remote gambling servers, challenging the regulator’s interpretation of the law and its technical assumptions.
Last month, the NGB issued a directive declaring that Remote Gambling Servers (RGS) fall outside the country’s legal framework, warning provincial licensing authorities to prohibit their use and align with national standards.
The announcement, backed by the National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications (NRCS), also confirmed that certifications for RGS would no longer be renewed, effectively shutting them out of licensed operations.
SABA’s March 9 statement pushes back strongly, arguing that the NGB has misapplied the National Gambling Act of 2004 and unfairly portrayed bookmakers as operating unlawfully. According to the association, licensed bookmakers do not offer interactive games, which the Act prohibits, but rather fixed‑odds betting, which is explicitly recognized as legal.
Bookmaker’s wagers are not gambling games, SABA argues
SABA’s central argument rests on how the National Gambling Act defines gambling activities. The NGB claims that RGS are being used to host interactive games, which section 11 of the Act outlaws unless authorized.
SABA counters this by pointing to section 6(2), which makes clear that a bookmaker’s wager is not a gambling game. If wagers are not gambling games, then they cannot be classified as interactive games either.
This distinction, SABA says, proves that bookmakers are not breaking the law when they use remote servers to manage betting.
“There is accordingly no legal basis 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, what they are offering are fixed odds contingency betting, as they are entitled to do in terms of the National Act,” SABA stated.
“This being the case, it is likewise incorrect to contend that remote gaming servers are unlawfully being used as a platform by bookmakers to offer interactive games to the public.”
SABA says presence of server doesn’t determine legality of an activity
The NGB also argued that South African National Standard SANS 1718‑4:2018 applies only to Wagering and Record Keeping Systems (WRS), not to RGS, and therefore remote servers cannot lawfully be tested or certified.
SABA disputes this, saying it overlooks how sportsbook platforms already rely on remote server infrastructure to host wagering logic and manage outcomes. These platforms are certified under SANS 1718‑4:2018 and are lawful in South Africa.
From a systems perspective, SABA explains, the role of a remote server in a sportsbook is identical to that of an RGS in a distributed gaming architecture. The presence of a server does not determine whether an activity is legal; what matters is the nature of the wager itself. By conflating technical infrastructure with gambling activity, SABA says the NGB has misled the public and created unnecessary alarm.
SABA closed its statement calling for fairness and accuracy in regulatory communication. “The betting public should be placed in an informed position regarding the provisions of the applicable law, and secondly, that the legitimate operations of licensed bookmakers should not unjustifiably be portrayed as being in defiance of the law,” the release read.
