Private lotto banned - Supreme Court rules

Accra, Feb. 18, GNA - The operations of Ghana Private Lotto Operators Association (GLOA) has been banned, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled. The ruling was over an application for review of its earlier decision barring GLOA's operations.

The SC noted that there was no subsisting mischief that the court needed to redress in the interest of justice and dismissed the application. The seven-member panel which noted the intractability and abuse of the process indulged in by the applicants, awarded cost of GH¢10,000 each against them.

They were Obiri Asare and Sons Limited, Rambel Enterprise Limited, Agrop Association Limited, Dan Multi Purpose Trading Enterprise Limited, Star Lotto Limited, and From Home Enterprise.

Meanwhile, GLOA after SC's ruling indicated that it would petition government and raise issues concerning job loss. Mr. Seth Amoaning, Secretary of GLOA, told journalists that the Executive Council would meet on the next line of action. The Association filed for a review of the Supreme Court's ruling whi= ch barred them after it had quashed the ruling of an Accra Fast Track High Court, which gave members of GLOA the green light to operate. In a motion on notice filed by GLOA at the Supreme Court, the Association contended that under the law, reviewing the jurisdiction of t= he Supreme Court could be exercised in exceptional circumstances, which had resulted in a miscarriage of justice. GLOA said the decision of the Supreme Court would bring about a miscarriage of justice because the National Lotto Authority (NLA) had bee= n empowered to proceed to seize properties of the Association when there we= re no terms determined through negotiation between the NLA and the Associati= on. "The laws of Ghana, particularly Article 18 of the 1992 Constitution=

and Section 58 (4) of Act 722, frown on taking of the property of the interested party/applicants without due process."

However, GLOA said the essence of the Supreme Court's ruling on Jul= y 22, 2009, was to remove the constitutional restraint and allow NLA to car= ry out its threat against them. GLOA said the decision of the Supreme Court created a dangerous situation which "will not serve the public good or be in the public interest". "The public interest would seriously be injured because the decisio= n has the effect of permitting the applicant to interfere with guaranteed property rights of citizens without adhering to the laid down procedure s= et out by the law."

GLOA said if the Supreme Court's decision was not reviewed, it wou= ld in effect be granting the NLA the judicial licence to take over the machines and equipment of the members of the Association in contravention of the constitutional order laid down by Article 18 of the 1992 Constitution. It noted that the spirit of the Constitution and the country's democracy was to provide payment of compensation in situations where pers= ons had to lose their property or business due to acts of omission on the par= t of the state. "Where the State by its own acts has encouraged persons to particip= ate and build their lives and very survival on the operations of lotto, to implement Act 722 without adhering to the conditions set out in the said Act 722, contravenes the Act itself and the constitution." They therefore prayed the court to review its decision to ensure t= hat NLA was restrained from interfering with their property unless the terms determined through negotiations were agreed on or otherwise adjudged by a=

court of competent jurisdiction. The Fast Track High Court on April 1, 2009, granted an interlocuto= ry injunction to GLOA and its members on its earlier ruling.

In the said ruling, the Fast Track High Court restrained the Natio= nal Lotto Authority (NLA) from interfering with private lotto operations pend= ing the outcome of an appeal. Assigning reasons for quashing the decision of the Fast Track High=

Court, the Supreme Court noted that the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction when it granted the said application. According to the Supreme Court, the High Court ought to have refuse= d the injunction, and that granting it amounted to defying an Act of Parliament. The NLA filed a writ at the Supreme Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction to overturn the orders of an Accra Fast Track Court in a mat= ter between the Authority and the GLOA and seven of its members. In an Order of Certiorari directed to the Fast Track High Court, t= he NLA contended that an error of law was patent on the face of the court's record. According to the NLA, the Fast Track High Court exceeded its jurisdiction when it ordered GLOA and its members to continue to operate lottery.