Across Africa, governments have stumbled upon an uncomfortable truth: taxing gambling winnings sounds fiscally sensible in theory, but enforcement and economic reality tell a different story. As several nations tighten their grip on betting revenues, earlier adopters are quietly reversing course, revealing a pattern that policymakers elsewhere would be wise to study.

Ghana’s High-Profile Reversal

Ghana offers the clearest cautionary tale. Just 18 months after introducing a 10% withholding tax on player winnings and a 20% operator tax in 2023, parliament scrapped the winners’ component entirely in April 2025. President John Mahama formalised the repeal as Act 1129, formally closing a chapter that Finance Minister Cassiel Ato Forson had already declared a failure.

The numbers tell why. Ghana Revenue Authority projected GH¢268.75 million (approximately $23.3 million) from the betting tax package. Actual receipts before repeal hovered around GH¢80 million. That’s a shortfall of nearly 70%. Government officials reframed the levy as regressive policy, arguing it penalised low-income gamblers during economic hardship. The betting tax became politically toxic quickly, lumped alongside other unpopular measures like the E-Levy in the government’s rollback campaign.

Uganda and Zimbabwe: Escalation Against the Odds

Not all African regulators have learned from Ghana’s experience. Uganda’s new withholding tax regime, effective July 2026, escalates to 15% on net winnings with a 30% operator rate. Lawmakers paired this with compliance measures including tax arrear forgiveness through June, then stricter monthly reporting. Yet land-based casino operators are already flagging practical impossibility. Bob Kabonero from Uganda’s Gaming Operators Association highlighted the fundamental challenge: online betting systems track individual accounts and transactions seamlessly, but brick-and-mortar casinos handling multiple simultaneous games with physical cash flow cannot realistically isolate individual winning transactions for 15% withholding at payout.

Zimbabwe has gone further still. From January 2026, the withholding tax jumped from 10% to 25% on gross winnings, with bookmaker tax on turnover rising from 3% to 20%. The government positioned this as both revenue mobilisation and harm reduction, but the spike has triggered fierce pushback. Parliamentary committees warned of compliance burden on operators and players. Industry bodies and retail associations argued the tax unfairly targets lower-income gamblers and risks pushing the entire market offshore.

The Recurring Pattern

Winners’ taxes across the continent follow a predictable arc: introduced with optimistic revenue forecasts, they encounter three stubborn obstacles simultaneously. Administrative enforcement proves harder than expected, particularly in jurisdictions with weaker compliance infrastructure. Higher rates accelerate migration to untaxed or offshore channels, shrinking the formal tax base. And politically, targeting player winnings becomes increasingly difficult when framed against economic hardship.

The lesson is emerging clearly. Withholding rates above a certain threshold appear to trigger evasion faster than they generate revenue. Countries contemplating winners’ taxes would do well to examine what Ghana learned the expensive way.

What the team thinks

Sheena McAllister says:

Philippa makes a compelling case for why blunt withholding instruments often misfire, though I’d suggest the real lesson here extends beyond tax rates to the broader question of regulatory design. From my compliance perspective, what Ghana and similar jurisdictions discovered is that high withholding taxes without robust player protection frameworks and transparent operator licensing actually push activity underground, ultimately costing governments far more in lost legitimate tax revenue and social costs than they’d ever recoup from paper-thin compliance. The smarter regulatory approach, which we’re seeing work in mature markets like the UK, pairs reasonable taxation with strong operator vetting and player safeguards, creating an environment where legitimate operators actually want to comply because the playing field is level and their licenses have real value.