Contrary to natural justice

Dear Editor,

Lloyd and Walsh are legends. Their records speak for themselves. My views on them as cricketers have not been changed by the quality of their work as selectors. I did not know how they would perform in their new roles, and therefore have no reason to be surprised. One cannot judge how sportsmen would perform in roles that demand different skills and qualifications.

Cozier, in his article ‘Gullible simpletons’, has given a clear exposition of the fallacies inherent in the explanations provided by Lloyd and Cameron on the sacking of Bravo in particular, as well as Pollard, and also Sammy, who was later reinstated, from the one-day squad (not team).

I believe the most indefensible aspect of their conduct is that they made decisions that should have been reasonably anticipated to trigger reaction in the entire cricket world (as they did) without giving reasons for those decisions. What Lloyd and Cameron have done is to provide after-the-fact rationalizations for their decisions.

Decisions affecting significant interests given without reasons, are contrary to natural justice, and are routinely overturned even if rendered by judges, in advanced legal systems like the West Indies, where arbitrariness, or other forms of abuse of power are properly seen as uniquely dangerous to the body politic.

Yours faithfully,
Romain Pitt