A former Public Relations Manager of the National Lottery Authority (NLA), Dr. Razak Kojo Opoku, has strongly defended the NLA–KGL Technology Limited licensing agreement, accusing investigative outlet The Fourth Estate and policy analyst Sulemana Briamah of misrepresenting the law and misleading the public ahead of an expected legal opinion from the Attorney-General.

In a detailed statement issued on Thursday, Mr. Opoku, who is also a university lecturer and researcher, argued that persistent calls for the cancellation of the NLA–KGL deal are legally unfounded and commercially unsustainable under the National Lotto Act, 2006 (Act 722).

Dr. Opoku clarified that Act 722 draws a clear legal distinction between operating the National Lotto and retailing lotto products.

According to him, while Section 4(1) of Act 722 prohibits any entity other than the NLA from operating a lottery, Section 35(2) explicitly bars the Authority itself from retailing lotto coupons.

“KGL does not operate or conduct the 5/90 National Lotto; it only retails lotto products,” he stated, adding that organising lotto draws remains the sole responsibility of the NLA.

He described claims that KGL is illegally operating the National Lotto as “a fundamental misinterpretation of the law.”

Dr. Opoku welcomed what he described as an admission by Mr. Briamah that KGL is a licensed Lotto Marketing Company (LMC), noting that the company operates under a licensing and collaboration framework permitted by Act 722.

He further argued that Section 28 of Act 722, which governs the payment of commissions to Lotto Marketing Companies, was designed primarily for kiosk-based lotto sales using point-of-sale terminals, not for digital or online lottery platforms.

“Online lottery operations involve Mobile Network Operators, ISO-certified infrastructure, and different pre-financing arrangements, which are not contemplated under Section 28,” he explained.

Addressing concerns over the handling of online lottery proceeds and prize payments, Dr. Opoku said the NLA does not have direct regulatory control over Mobile Network Operators (MNOs), making it impractical for the Authority to directly manage digital ticket sales or mobile money prize payments.

He cited Regulation 13 of the Lottery Regulations, 2008 (L.I. 1948), which allows Lotto Marketing Companies or partner banks to validate and pay online winnings, subject to authorisation by the NLA Board.

Dr. Opoku rejected claims that the NLA’s declining transfers to the Consolidated Fund since 2019 are linked to the KGL deal. He argued that historical data shows the Authority has often transferred funds to the Consolidated Fund while simultaneously accumulating arrears to prize winners, marketing companies, and service providers.

He disclosed that between 2012 and 2020, the NLA transferred approximately GHS209.4 million to the Consolidated Fund, despite owing over GHS233 million in unpaid obligations during the same period.

“This situation predates KGL and cannot logically be attributed to its operations,” he said.

According to Dr. Opoku, KGL has paid more than GHS500 million to the NLA since commencing operations, including GHS157.6 million in 2024 alone, while recording profits of about GHS70 million for the year.

“NLA earned more than KGL in 2024. The real question should be how the Authority utilised the funds it received,” he noted.

He also dismissed claims that KGL’s operations began affecting NLA revenues in 2019, pointing out that the agreement was signed in November of that year and that KGL operated under a provisional licence until 2021.

Dr. Opoku expressed confidence that the Attorney-General, Dr. Dominic Ayine, who also serves on the NLA Board, will provide legal advice that protects the interests of the state.

He cautioned against what he described as attempts by media and policy actors to pressure the Attorney-General, insisting that any such efforts would ultimately fail.

“KGL is here to stay and will continue to support government efforts to deliver value to the Ghanaian people,” he concluded.