Constitutional Court Dismisses betPawa & Betways Bid to Stop Betting Tax Collection
The Constitutional court has dismissed an application by Betbio Zambia Limited (trading as BetPawa) and Emerald Bay Limited (trading as Betway) seeking to restrain the Zambia Revenue Authority (ZRA) and The Attorney General from imposing and collecting a newly introduced 10% excise duty on betting stakes.
The two betting companies had petitioned the Court, arguing that Section 7 of the Customs and Excise (Amendment) Act No. 11 of 2025, which introduced the excise duty on betting services, was unconstitutional. They cited violations of Articles 8, 9, 10, 89, and 198 of the Constitution of Zambia, alleging lack of transparency, inadequate public consultation, and severe economic impact.
The petitioners claimed that the tax was excessive, ambiguous, unimplementable and financially unsustainable, arguing it could force them to shut down operations and lead to widespread 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 argued that the petitioners’ financial projections were speculative and unsupported by audited data.
The two betting companies sought an interim injunction to stop enforcement of the excise duty pending the full hearing of their constitutional petition. They argued that the tax burden exceeded their gross gaming revenue, that the law lacked clarity on its application, and that the timing of its introduction mid-financial year made compliance practically impossible. They further contended that damages would not be an adequate remedy given the scale of potential harm.
ZRA countered that the tax was lawful and implementable in its current form. It argued that halting the tax collection would unjustifiably interfere with its statutory duty, which flows directly from the Constitution and reflects one of the core attributes of State sovereignty.
The Authority further submitted that granting an injunction would undermine the widely accepted “pay now, argue later” principle, a cornerstone of tax administration in most jurisdictions.
Read Also: 1XBet becomes the Official Betting Partner of the ATP Challenge Tour tennis tournament Series
The Court ruled that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a sufficiently serious constitutional issue to justify suspending the law at this stage. It held that granting the injunction would effectively halt the operation of a law passed by Parliament, which is not permissible at the interlocutory stage.
The Court reaffirmed the “pay now, argue later” principle and found that the petitioners had not provided substantial evidence of irreparable harm or proven that compliance would lead to insolvency.
The Court observed that “the obligation to pay tax is not a legal impossibility.”
Further, the Court emphasised that the Authority has a statutory duty to collect taxes on behalf of the Government and that this duty is rooted in public interest which outweigh the private interest of the two betting companies. The Court held that restraining ZRA would be unjustified because its statutory duty to collect taxes serves a critical public function, and granting the injunction would elevate the private interests of the two betting companies over the public interest in revenue collection without any serious constitutional question or proof of irreparable harm.
The application for interim injunction was dismissed, allowing ZRA to continue collecting the excise duty.
The constitutional challenge will proceed to full hearing but with this dismissal of the application by the two companies, excise duty on betting services remains in effect.
The matter was before Lady Justice Judy Zulu Mulongoti.
