Defying orders: Eastern Cape Gambling Board allows cockfighting betting to continue
The Eastern Cape Gambling Board (ECGB) is stirring controversy by openly defying a directive from the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition to cease promoting cockfighting bets offered by a South African bookmaker, Roosterbet. This defiance raises legislative concerns regarding animal welfare and regulatory oversight in South Africa.
A storm over cockfighting bets
At the centre of this debate is Roosterbet, which allows South African gamblers the opportunity to place bets on live-streamed cockfights occurring in the Philippines. While cockfighting is explicitly illegal in South Africa under the Animals Protection Act, and online cockfighting (e-sabong) was banned in the Philippines in 2022, the ECGB believes it can operate within the bounds of the law. They contend that betting on these events remains legal since the fights take place outside of South African jurisdiction.
The NSPCA, along with the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, has expressed fierce opposition to the ECGB’s position. The NSPCA issued a formal warning to Roosterbet in December 2024, highlighting the violation of animal cruelty laws due to its online promotion and streaming of cockfights. Both the ECGB and the National Gambling Board were included in this warning.
Initially, Roosterbet’s CEO claimed that the company would take swift corrective actions and assured the NSPCA that all cockfighting-related content would be removed. However, after seeking clarification from the ECGB, they were informed on December 9, 2024, that the cockfighting events held in the Philippines were beyond the reach of South African law. Mabutho Zwane, CEO of the Eastern Cape Gambling Board, stated in a letter to the NSPCA that Roosterbet’s acceptance of bets on these events fell under a “lawful contingency” as defined by the Eastern Cape Gambling Act.
This interpretation is perplexing given that Section 2A(1)(c) of the Animals Protection Act makes it illegal to promote animal fighting for profit or amusement. Additionally, the Philippine government banned online cockfighting in 2022 over concerns relating to gambling addiction and organised crime.
The political fallout
As the ECGB continued to stand firm, the NSPCA escalated the issue to the national level, lodging a formal complaint with Minister Parks Tau. The minister unequivocally sided with the NSPCA, stating that both the National Gambling Act and the Animals Protection Act were violated and that the acceptance of bets on cockfighting, regardless of location, was illegal. Tau’s office committed to presenting the case to the National Gambling Policy Council, the authority overseeing provincial gambling regulations. He instructed the ECGB to demand that Roosterbet cease its cockfighting bets.
However, the ECGB responded defiantly. In a letter, Zwane rejected the minister’s interpretation, arguing that the Animals Protection Act applies strictly within South African borders. He contended that betting on foreign cockfights does not constitute a violation of the law, asserting that the minister’s directive was “open to debate.” This directly challenges the national authority responsible for gambling regulation across South Africa.
The ethical implications of the ECGB’s stance are alarming, especially considering the brutal nature of cockfighting. Birds are often armed with sharp blades on their legs and forced to fight to the death—a spectacle designed for the amusement of onlookers. The cockfighting industry in the Philippines is estimated to be worth billions, with around 2,500 venues across the country and 30 million roosters involved in matches annually.
The NSPCA has gathered evidence against Roosterbet, including promotional materials, video footage of the fights, and betting slips. They argue that allowing bets on cockfighting is shocking and undermines South Africa’s animal welfare standards.
A call for accountability
The NSPCA’s spokesperson poignantly questioned, “If a bookmaker had taken bets on dogfighting, would the ECGB be defending them just as vehemently? This is not just a lapse in judgment—it’s an ethical and legal failure of epic proportions.”
This situation raises critical questions about the ECGB’s challenge to national authority and its potential impact on regulatory governance. If a provincial body can disregard national legislation without consequence, it sets a dangerous precedent that could ripple through other sectors such as healthcare, education, and finance. Legal analyst Thandi Maseko stated, “The ECGB’s actions not only make a mockery of animal welfare but also of South Africa’s constitutional order.”
As the NSPCA explores its legal options, civil society is growing increasingly urgent in its demand for accountability from the ECGB. Calls for Minister Tau to take further action are intensifying, including the possibility of dismissing the board’s leadership. “This is a matter of national interest,” the NSPCA asserts. “It is no longer just about a rogue bookmaker. It is about a regulatory board that has decided it is above the law.”
The future of gambling regulation in South Africa now hinges on how national authorities respond to this provocative defiance. As the spotlight turns toward the ECGB, the pressing question remains: Can the rule of law withstand this challenge?
