Betting Companies Suspend Operations, Protest 10% Exercise Duty on Betting Stakes
Betway and other betting companies temporarily suspended their operations in Zambia in October 2025 in response to a newly introduced 10% excise duty on betting stakes. The companies claimed the new tax made the business environment “financially unsustainable”.
The legal and financial challenge
Betting companies’ arguments: In October 2025, BetPawa and Betway filed a constitutional petition to stop the government from collecting the new excise duty. The companies argued the tax was “excessive, ambiguous, unimplementable, and financially unsustainable”.
They also cited a lack of transparency and consultation with the industry during the legislative process. The companies warned that the tax could force them out of business and lead to job losses.
Below is the recent decision from the Constitutional Court;
Constitutional Court Dismisses BetPawa and Betway Challenge Against 10% Betting Excise Duty
By Masauso Mkwayaya
The Constitutional Court has dismissed an application by BetPawa and Betway, which sought to restrain the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) and the Attorney General from imposing and collecting the newly introduced 10% excise duty on betting stakes.
ZRA Corporate Communications Manager, Oliver Nzala, confirmed the development in a statement to ZNBC News. He explained that the two betting companies had petitioned the Court, arguing that Section 7 of the Customs and Excise Act of 2025—introducing the excise duty on betting services—was unconstitutional.
The companies cited alleged violations of Articles 8, 9, 10, 89, and 198 of the Constitution, claiming the law lacked transparency, adequate public consultation, and would have severe economic consequences.
Mr. Nzala stated that the petitioners described the tax as excessive, ambiguous, unimplementable, and financially unsustainable, warning that it could lead to business closures and job losses.
In response, ZRA maintained that the excise duty is a consumption tax borne by betting players—not operators—and that the law was enacted following stakeholder engagement. The Authority also argued that the companies’ financial projections were speculative and unsupported by audited data.
The petitioners had additionally sought an interim injunction to halt enforcement of the excise duty pending a full hearing, contending that the tax burden exceeded their gross gaming revenue, lacked clarity, and was introduced mid-financial year, making compliance impractical. They further argued that damages would not be an adequate remedy due to the scale of potential harm.
ZRA countered that the tax was lawful, implementable, and aligned with its constitutional mandate. It emphasized that suspending tax collection would undermine the widely accepted “pay now, argue later” principle—a cornerstone of tax administration globally.
The Court ruled that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a sufficiently serious constitutional issue to justify suspending the law at this stage.
What economy do betting companies support? Maybe the South African economy cos these parasites only collect money from mostly the poorest Zambians and they ship all that money to South Africa. Infact for me, tax their Bank accounts rather, and as is the rule in South Africa, they must all Bank locally, no more keeping money in their bags in Dollars or direct depositing their profits in South African accounts?