Lotteries Commission complains of conflicting laws
The National Lotteries Commission, which regulates lotteries and distributes funds to good causes, says its operations are hindered by conflicting laws and different gambling regulators.
This created ambiguity in regulation and lack of enforcement powers. The commission said it would reach out to provincial gambling boards to resolve conflicts resulting from differing interpretations of legislation for provinces. Each province has a gambling and racing board.
The commission has faced allegations of corruption. MPs called for an investigation of its proactive fund, which amounts to about R140m annually. The commission was empowered, through a 2015 amendment to its enabling act, to grant worthy causes funds without application to address their need for funding although they could not submit formal applications.
The proactive fund finances many infrastructure projects, such as schools and early childhood-development facilities.
In 2018, DA MP and trade and industry spokesman Dean Macpherson said there were problems with the proactive fund. It was used as a “slush fund” to enrich a few people. In its 2018/2019 report tabled in parliament on Thursday, the commission did not address the claims directly. It rubbished such claims in the past.
It said in its report that if it was to be effective in regulating lotteries and sports pools, priority should be given to reviewing the institutional framework and to support harmonisation of gambling and lottery legislation. “The minimum percentage contribution to good causes should be determined by the board and included in the request for proposals to appoint an operator.”
The commission said online gaming is a growing option for consumers, and threatened revenue generated by traditional lottery operators.
Commission chair Alfred Nevhutanda said it funded worthy causes to the tune of R1.3bn. The auditor-general gave the commission an unqualified audit opinion, but said the entity assigned an independent consultant to investigate allegations of irregular involvement in grant funding by three employees.
The investigations, concluded in May. One employee, was dismissed, one suspended and one cleared of wrongdoing.