Let Lotto go on
Jan 23, 2003
A CONTROVERSY has blown up over the new national lottery run by Uganda Lottery Company.
A CONTROVERSY has blown up over the new national lottery run by Uganda Lottery Company.
The state minister of finance is saying that the ULC licence is not valid because the shareholding of the company has changed while the National Lottery Board says there is no problem.
In the meantime ULC has invested US $6 million in the project, employed 300 people and set up 600 lottery terminals.
There are genuine issues surrounding lotteries. Is it is a good idea to encourage poor people to gamble? Is government getting a reasonable share of the revenue generated? What percentage of the revenue will be returned to the public as prizes? Will it stimulate or retard the economy?
Presumably government analysed and resolved these matters before issuing the licence in question two years ago. Presumably the terms and conditions of the ULC licence are those that were approved two years ago and therefore remain acceptable.
Therefore the issue is simply whether the lottery licence is affected by the change of
shareholding in the company.
It appears that the National Lottery Board and even perhaps the Minister of Finance indicated to the foreign investors that their licence was valid and it was on that basis that ULC invested in Uganda.
It is important that we respect foreign investors if we want to sustain economic growth in Uganda. If there is a problem here, it does not appear to be the fault of the ULC.
Unless there is decisive evidence of wrongdoing by ULC, the Ministry of Finance should withdraw its objection to the ULC licence and let the Uganda Lotto proceed as scheduled.
The state minister of finance is saying that the ULC licence is not valid because the shareholding of the company has changed while the National Lottery Board says there is no problem.
In the meantime ULC has invested US $6 million in the project, employed 300 people and set up 600 lottery terminals.
There are genuine issues surrounding lotteries. Is it is a good idea to encourage poor people to gamble? Is government getting a reasonable share of the revenue generated? What percentage of the revenue will be returned to the public as prizes? Will it stimulate or retard the economy?
Presumably government analysed and resolved these matters before issuing the licence in question two years ago. Presumably the terms and conditions of the ULC licence are those that were approved two years ago and therefore remain acceptable.
Therefore the issue is simply whether the lottery licence is affected by the change of
shareholding in the company.
It appears that the National Lottery Board and even perhaps the Minister of Finance indicated to the foreign investors that their licence was valid and it was on that basis that ULC invested in Uganda.
It is important that we respect foreign investors if we want to sustain economic growth in Uganda. If there is a problem here, it does not appear to be the fault of the ULC.
Unless there is decisive evidence of wrongdoing by ULC, the Ministry of Finance should withdraw its objection to the ULC licence and let the Uganda Lotto proceed as scheduled.