The Ghana Lotto Operators Association (GLOA) says one million jobs will be lost, if the Accra Fast Track High Court’s ruling that outlawed the activities of private lotto operators is not reverse. The association and six others have therefore filed for a stay of execution of the High Court's judgment pending the determination of an appeal against the ruling. The motion for the appeal will be moved on Wednesday September 3, 2008. According to the General Secretary of the Ghana Lotto Operators Association (GLOA), Mr Seth Amoani, the GLOA had engaged the services of more than one million employees and lotto agents who operated in all districts in the country and for that reason, they and their dependants had been adversely affected by the ruling, which he described as untenable. Reacting to the Fast Track High Court's ruling, he said the court’s decision contravened the Supreme Court's ruling of July 23, 2008, which said the analysis by the defendant (NLA) is largely correct except that the plaintiffs are not at the mercy of the state in seeking to participate in the state regulated lottery industry. The licensing regime has to conform to the standards set in Article 296 of the constitution. He said the lower court's decision further contravened the Supreme Court ruling that said “the National Lottery Authority has a duty to be fair and candid in allocating licences to those who wish to participate in the lottery business.” The Accra Fast Track High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Edward Asante, on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 dismissed the entire action instituted against the National Lottery Authority (NLA) by the GLOA. The court relied on a Supreme Court ruling that declared the Lotto Ad as constitutional and maintained that the order from the NLA directing the GLOA to hand over their equipment was valid and must be complied with by the plaintiffs. The lotto operators had sought to question the constitutionality of the National Lottery Authority (NLA) -Act 2006, Act 722. In dismissing the case, the court also ordered the GLOA and six others to surrender their lotto draw equipment to the NLA. It also awarded a total cost of GH¢4,000 against the plaintiffs as each of the plaintiffs was expected to pay GH¢2,000. The other plaintiffs are Obiri Asare and Sons Limited, Rambel Enterprise Limited, Dan Multipurpose Trading Enterprise Limited, Agrop Association Limited, Star Lotto Limited and From-Home Enterprises. The plaintiffs had 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 1, 2007 was unconstitutional, illegal and unreasonable but the Fast Track High Court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any compensation because they did not make such claims in their statement of case. The GLOA had argued that the Department of National Lotteries (DNL) had doubled as the NLA to monopolise the lotto business to the detriment of the GLOA, which had given employment to many as well as raised revenue for the state. The plaintiffs have since, filed for stay of execution of the court's orders pending the outcome of the appeal on the grounds that the ruling was "wrong in law and all improper exercise of discretion. According to the plaintiffs, "the subsequent dismissal of our action raises serious questions of law and fact which would have to be considered by the appellate court". An affidavit in support of their motion for stay of execution stated that the ruling of the Fast Track High Court had the potential of folding up the business of the plaintiffs. It said the appeal which was likely to succeed touched on the fundamental human rights of the plaintiffs and accordingly prayed the court to restrain the NLA from interfering with the work or property rights of the plaintiffs, pending the determination of the appeal. According to the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court recognised that the plaintiffs were not at the mercy of the state in seeking to participate in the state-regulated lottery industry. It further argued that the Supreme Court never said the plaintiffs could not participate in the state-regulated lottery industry. According to the plaintiff/appellants, the trial judge erred in law by summarily dismissing an action that concerned their fundamental human rights. They further stated that the trial judge failed in his duty to give them a fair hearing in a case involving serious issues of fact and several pieces of evidence. The appellants are therefore praying for an order to set aside the ruling of the trial court, as well as an order to restore the appellants’ action for it to determine on the merits after a proper hearing. According to the appellants, they would file additional grounds of appeal upon receipt of the court's ruling. Source: Daily Graphic