Kenya’s gambling stakeholders push back on licensing bill
Some of Kenya’s gambling operators and representative bodies have strongly opposed the 2026 licensing bill proposed by the government, saying it could pose serious disruptions to industry operations. Industry players described the new fees proposed under the plan as “unprecedented and punitive.”
These concerns were raised during public participation forums for the Gambling Control Act, held by the Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) at the Kenyatta International Convention Centre (KICC) from 31 March to 1 April 2026. Stakeholders used the platform to challenge key provisions within the draft bill, particularly its financial implications.
Fee structures spark industry backlash
A prominent issue was the proposed fee structure, which operators labelled “unreasonable, unprecedented and punitive.” They pointed out the high application fees, steep security bonds, and a new 10 per cent levy on advertising budgets. These costs would be in addition to existing excise duties, further increasing operational pressure across the sector.
Operators warned that the combined burden could destabilise licensed businesses and reduce government tax revenues. They also cautioned that high costs may push operators towards unregulated offshore markets.
Operators warn of economic fallout
Industry representatives argued that the proposals could trigger widespread business closures and job losses. They noted that reduced activity within the regulated sector would ultimately weaken compliance and tax collection efforts.
Paul Mutegi, representing the Association of Gaming Operators in Kenya (AGOK), outlined the risk of overtaxation. “We’re already a very heavily taxed industry, and you’re taxing the same base. The punters are still the same. So even the 15 per cent GGR that you know pays for sporting infrastructure that’s going to go away, or it’s going to take a very, very big hit. If indeed we push for this new cost regime.” His remarks highlighted concerns that additional levies could erode funding streams linked to sports development.
Questions raised over licensing fees
Stakeholders also criticised inconsistencies within the proposed fee structure. Judith Kiragu, an AGOK board member, questioned the logic behind application costs. “The application fee is higher than the license fee. It is KES5 million ($38,684), while the license fee is KES4 million ($30,947). How can an application fee, which is just for obtaining a document, be higher than the license fee?”
Operators argued that such pricing models could deter legitimate entrants while encouraging informal market participation.
Capital requirements and jackpot fees under scrutiny
Beyond licensing fees, stakeholders raised concerns about capital thresholds for foreign operators. The proposed framework requires a paid-up capital of KES100 million ($773,694) for foreign-based companies. Operators must also provide an additional security bond or guarantee of KES200 million ($1.55 million).
John Mutua, CEO of AGOK, criticised additional charges targeting jackpot products. “We propose to waive all the introduced fees. Jackpot is still a product like any other. You do not charge fees for any of the other products that we have,” he said.
Mutua argued that jackpots should not attract extra charges beyond existing licensing obligations. He emphasised that operators already maintain fixed deposit accounts to secure prize pools. “No additional fees should be levied on operators, considering the license fees and levies already paid.”
Concerns over regulatory oversight frequency
Mutua also challenged the administrative burden created by proposed compliance measures. He criticised the requirement to compute minimum capital adequacy on a quarterly basis.
According to Mutua, a quarterly schedule is “too frequent” and risks operational inefficiencies. He suggested shifting reviews to a bi-annual basis to ease regulatory pressure on operators. Mutua warned that constant monitoring could create a situation where authorities are always “looking over your shoulder.”
Regulator defends Kenya’s licensing bill
The GRA defended the proposed licensing bill changes, arguing that Kenya’s industry has been “under-regulated” for decades. Officials pointed to legislation dating back to the 1960s, describing it as “grossly inadequate” for modern gambling markets.
Peter Karimi, Director General of the GRA, emphasised consumer protection priorities. “His Excellency the President has been very clear that the player must be protected. Player responsibility, responsible gambling, and safeguarding players, especially online youth and children are our primary concerns as regulators. Everything else, including ensuring a fair operating environment and tax collection, comes after that. We are listening to Kenyans from all walks of life, and these principles will guide how we incorporate their feedback into the final document.”
Next steps as consultation period closes
The public participation period closes on 13 April 2026. The GRA has urged stakeholders to submit written feedback before the final draft proceeds to Parliament. The outcome of this process will determine how Kenya balances regulation, taxation, and industry sustainability in the coming years.
Be part of the action! Join the world’s biggest iGaming community with SiGMA’s Top 10 News countdown. Subscribe HERE for weekly updates, insider insights, and exclusive subscriber-only offers.
