Evidentia AI has completed a four-week review of South Sudan’s betting market and presented its findings to the Department of Betting, Gaming and Lotteries at the Ministry of Finance and Planning. The company says it assessed the market without connecting to operator systems, accessing official records or conducting transactions.

This work gives the Department a starting point for considering further oversight. It does not mark the deployment of real-time transaction monitoring, which Evidentia describes as a subsequent phase of its approach.

The Review Examined South Sudan’s Market Before Connecting Systems

According to the company’s release, observations were checked against live sources. The detailed findings went directly to the Department and remain with it. Evidentia’s commercial director, Ajibola Abdulkadir, said the review examined operating activity and payment routes to help identify where oversight could have the most effect.

Daniel Apuk Deng Reech, the Ministry’s director for Betting, Gaming and Lotteries, said: “The Department values this pilot as a practical first step in strengthening oversight of the betting sector.”

His statement places the work at the assessment stage. The Department will consider the findings under its mandate, rather than a technology supplier deciding what regulatory action follows.

Evidentia’s Wider Product Range Involves Different Levels of Access

The distinction matters because Evidentia markets several forms of oversight technology. Its public website describes Evidentia Proof as an audit and compliance product that can operate without technical integration. The company also offers Evidentia Verify, which it describes as read-only monitoring of gaming operator wallets at mobile money providers.

A third product, Evidentia Shield, proposes routing gaming transactions through a central platform. That is a substantially different arrangement from observing a market without connecting systems: it concerns the transaction route itself, rather than an external review.

For operators and payment providers, an observational review and an integrated monitoring service create different questions about access, responsibilities and implementation. A review can identify matters for investigation. Establishing revenue from transaction records requires access to those records and an agreed basis for interpreting them.

The public release does not disclose the pilot’s detailed findings. It therefore provides no basis for identifying particular operators as non-compliant or putting a value on uncollected revenue.

iGW Market Relevance Opinion

The commercial distinction is the scope of access. Operators should separate a market assessment from a requirement to connect systems or change payment flows.

In South Sudan, the evidence currently supports a completed review and a Department considering its findings, not an implemented transaction-monitoring regime.

Source: Company release via allAfrica

Have an upcoming campaign?

Let’s build a localised content system for you! Share your target market and the campaign brief.