NLA ORDERED TO MAKE ¢10B UNDERTAKING

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

By William Yaw Owusu

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

An Accra Circuit Court on Monday restrained the Veterans Administration Ghana (VAG) from granting license to private lotto operators in the country in the interim.

However, the court, presided over by Francis Obiri ordered the National Lottery Authority (NLA), who had filed the application for interlocutory injunction, to make an undertaking pending the final determination of the suit.

According to the court, NLA is to make an undertaking totaling a whopping GH¢100,000 (¢10 billion) GH¢500,000 (¢5 billion) each to both the VAG and Luck Web Ghana Limited, who are defendants in the case and subsequently made no order as to cost.

Before the judge delivered the ruling, George Addo-Yobo, lead counsel for the NLA, prayed the court to suspend the ruling pending an outcome of a negotiation for settlement that the parties in the matter had commenced.

“The parties have embarked upon an ex curia settlement. We want to tidy the knots and report back to the court about the outcome,” he urged the court.

However, the judge said he was ready to go ahead with his ruling and said that the parties could still go ahead with their negotiation regardless of the orders of the court.

Tussle over licence

The court has been called upon by the NLA to, among other things, determine which body has the sole right to regulate, supervise, conduct and manage national lotto or lottery in the country.

NLA’s point

According to the NLA, the National Lotto Act, (Act 722) of 2006 particularly Section 4 of the Act has given it the sole authority to regulate, supervise, conduct and manage National Lotto and to provide related matters.

VAG’s defence

However, the VAG insisted that under Act 844, the law mandates them to hold lotteries and cannot be stopped by the NLA from issuing license to other entities in furtherance of the administration’s objective and said it has not and does not intend to conduct national lotto.

It is the contention of the VAG that under Section 22 (1) of Act 844, they have the right to “hold lotteries, or raffles or similar games for the furtherance of its objects in accordance with the NLA Act (2006) Act 722 and the Gaming Act, 2006 (Act 721).

Section 22 (2) of Act 844 specifically states that “a person, who holds lotteries, raffles, or similar games under this Act without the express approval of the administration commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of 100 penalty units or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or to both.”

Third party factor

Just as the court was to decide on whether or not to grant the NLA’s injunction application, Luck Web Ghana Limited, an online betting firm, filed a motion seeking to join the action and also to ‘arrest’ the court’s ruling until it was also heard in the matter as a third party.

After moving the application, which NLA vehemently opposed, the court granted Luck Web’s permission to join the case as a third party on the grounds that the NLA in its own pleadings had made references to a third party and could not turn around to prevent such third parties from joining the matter.

NLA’s Argument

David Lamptey, who had moved the motion for the NLA, said “the NLA is the only institution set up by statute to operate lotto in the country,” and cited a case involving the Gaming Commission ex parte the NLA in which the High Court affirmed the NLA’s status.

“Operation of lotto or lottery is the sole preserve of the NLA,” he argued, adding “the respondent is challenging us purely on the grounds of Section 22 of Act 844.”

He said that “it is an established rule of interpretation that a court must give meaning to the entire statute to ensure the purpose is achieved through interpretation and that it was evident that the NLA had the sole power to conduct lottery and prohibit anybody from doing same.

“Section 22 of Act 844 does not say anywhere that VAG should have power alongside NLA. Anything they want to do must come squarely under NLA Act 722,” adding “they cannot on their own unilaterally give people permit to operate lotto.”

VAG’s Response

Citing Sections 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Interpretation Act, 2009, Act 792, Kwaku Appiatse Abaidoo, counsel for the VAG, urged the court to look at the enactments as a whole and not specifics as NLA was seeking to do.

He said Act 722 established the Lotto Act and nowhere did promulgators of the law talk about Lottery, saying “under Act 844, the respondent has the power to hold lotteries, raffles, or similar games.”

He said per the rules of interpretation, there was a clear difference between ‘subject to’ and ‘in accordance with’ and said parliament was well aware of the existence of Act 722 but went ahead to pass Act 844 into law giving VAG the mandate to organize lottery, raffles, among others, under Section 22.

“Lotto is a form of lottery and they are all subject to the Gaming Act, Act 721 of 2006…Act 722 never defined lottery.”

“Nowhere in their affidavit in support have they deposed that the respondent has infringed on their rights under Act 722.”

“We gave out license under Act 844 and not under Act 722. We have not made depositions challenging their right under Act 722 to supervise National Lotto.”

Luck Web’s Position

Luck Web, through their counsel Ekow Dadson, when joined as a third party, also argued that “if the court grants the injunction it will in substance have the effect of suspending the provisions of Act 844 which granted licence to us and this will amount to freezing an Act of Parliament.”

He said “we obtained a valid license from VAG which gains its authority under Act 844 and our rights and interests must be guaranteed.”

Court’s decision

The court, in granting the injunction, said it was going to consider whether Act 844 is subservient to Section 4 of Act 722 or in conflict with Act 722 or whether Act 844 had been repealed by Section 4 of Act 722.

The judge set April 28, 2014 for trial to commence.