Africa’s 54 Separate Gambling Jurisdictions Create Persistent Barriers to Regulated Scale

Africa is routinely described as the gambling industry’s next great growth story. Yet operators attempting to scale across the continent encounter not one market but 54 separate jurisdictions, each with distinct regulators, tax regimes and compliance requirements.

According to reporting by iGaming Future, the African iGaming market generated an estimated US$23 billion in gross gaming revenue during 2025. An estimated 77 percent of that activity ran through unregulated operators. More than 4,100 offshore platforms actively target African consumers, while governments may be losing an estimated US$4.45 billion annually in tax revenue.

Regulatory Unpredictability and Operational Friction

Peter Emolemo Kesitilwe, CEO of the African iGaming Alliance, states that diversity itself is not the core problem. “The problem arises when there is very little regulatory inter-operability,” he explains. An operator entering five African markets may face five licensing processes, five different sets of technical requirements, different certification expectations, different reporting systems, different responsible gambling requirements and dramatically different tax structures.

Kesitilwe has watched operators pull out of Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda entirely, sometimes within 48 hours of regulatory notice of impending tax or licensing changes. Ethiopia cancelled every gambling licence last December. “Where are those players? We don’t know where they are now. We have channelled them to the offshore,” Kesitilwe says. Duplication is not necessarily the same thing as stronger regulation.

Ladipo Abiose Akolade, founder of the Nigeria-based Gamblepause Initiative Africa, notes that different laws, cultural attitudes and religious considerations around gambling make closer regulatory cooperation difficult. Fragmentation affects player protection, with responsible gambling structures varying significantly by jurisdiction.

Cooperation Over Harmonisation as the Practical Path

Both Kesitilwe and Abiose resist calls for a single continental regulator. Abiose advocates shared standards through existing bodies such as the Economic Community of West African States or the African Union. Kesitilwe prefers cooperation rather than harmonisation, cautioning that differing national laws make the latter extremely difficult.

He identifies South Africa and Nigeria as the continent’s most stable, mature markets, while noting Kenya has lost ground and now presents an image of confusion. Smaller markets such as South Sudan, Eswatini and Lesotho require foundational work on regulatory frameworks.

When regulation becomes unpredictable, the biggest beneficiary is often the offshore illegal operator. The realistic question is whether Africa’s 54 markets can achieve greater interoperability on licensing, technical standards, reporting and player protection without surrendering individual frameworks. Without progress on this front, the regulated industry will continue to cede ground and investment potential to offshore channels.

Reporting: iGaming Future

Generated by SCCG’s automated editorial system from published source reporting. SCCG Management holds editorial responsibility.