Ignore directives from NLA

June 6, 2008 (Page 34)

THE Ghana Lotto Operators Association (GLOA) has urged private lotto operators and publishers of lotto numbers to ignore a directive from the National Lottery Authority (NLA) aimed at barring them from publishing lotto results.
According to the association, it was illegal for the NLA to direct lotto publishers, through media publications, to desist from publishing drawn lotto numbers because the NLA had been restrained by the High Court from interfering with the operations of the GLOA until the Supreme Court decided on a legal action instituted against the NLA by the association.
The Accra High Court, on March 14, 2008, granted an interlocutory injunction filed by the GLOA and six others to restrain the NLA from interfering with the property rights of lotto operating businesses of those concerned.
According to the court, the outcome of the case at the Supreme Court would guide it in its decision in the case because the issue of constitutionality had been raised by the NLA.
The Supreme Court is yet to fix a date for the hearing of the matter.
Reacting to newspaper publications by the NLA which had asked publishers not to publish numbers drawn by the GLOA, the Secretary of the association, Mr Seth Amoaning, accused the NLA of cajoling suppliers of GLOA, lotto publishers, among other clients.
“The subterfuge being adopted by the NLA to achieve its unconstitutional ambition to collapse the lotto business when the Supreme Court is yet to determine the case is most unfortunate and unacceptable under the present constitutional dispensation,” Mr Amoaning stated on behalf of the association.
He said “the subterfuge by the NLA is most unfortunate, given the fact that the dispute between us is pending and a restraint is in place”.
Mr Amoaning further stated that the GLOA employed a large number of Ghanaians, as well as provided revenue for the government, and for that matter it would use all legal means to contest the NLA’s interference in its business.
In the substantive matter, the plaintiffs — including Obiri Asare and Sons Limited, Rambel Enterprise Limited, Agrop Association Ltd, Star Lotto Ltd and From-Home Enterprises — filed the interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from “interfering with the property rights or lotto operating businesses of the plaintiffs pending the final determination of this matter”.
The matter was dealt with by a High Court in September last year, which referred the parties to take the matter to the Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the directive from the NLA to private lotto operators to surrender machines or equipment used for the operation of lottery to the director-general by August 14, 2007 was unconstitutional, illegal and unreasonable.
Consequent to the order, they want an order to set aside that directive and a further order to restrain the NLA from “unlawfully, unconstitutionally or unreasonably interfering with the property rights of the plaintiffs”.
The plaintiffs maintain that the National Lotto Act, 2006 (Act 722), which outlawed the operations of lotto business by private lotto operators, infringes the constitutionally guaranteed right of the private lotto operators to free economic activity.
According to them, the creation of the NLA to take over and monopolise the operation of the lotto business in Ghana infringed the constitutional injunction to the government to ensure a pronounced role for the private sector in the economy.
The plaintiffs, in their statement of claim, said they had been in the private lotto operating business since 1989 and currently had a large number of employees and independent agents who conducted business for them or assisted them in the operation of their lotto business.
According to them, the NLA, in July 2007, advertised its establishment in the media and said it was the only body that was mandated under the act to operate lotto business in the country.
The plaintiffs contended that they had their own marketing agents and could not be easily relegated to the position of lotto marketing agents.
The advertisement, they claimed, also directed all persons who, before Act 722 came into force, had their own machines or equipment for lottery business to surrender such equipment to the Director-General of the NLA before August 14.
“The machines or equipment in question are our own property acquired with our own resources. We do not only have assets but also liabilities that cannot be severed from the assets,” they contended.
To them, the NLA did not negotiate with them, as stipulated by Act 722, regarding the machines or equipment.
The plaintiffs said they could neither be compelled to surrender their property to the NLA, nor could the defendant compulsorily acquire their property without prior agreement as to compensation and other consequence.