As cricket is the premier sport of the land it follows that there are thousands of nominal stakeholders in the business of the Guyana Cricket Board by virtue of their patronage of, and abiding interest in its offerings.
Many of them would have been deeply perturbed and puzzled by the developments in and around the cricket board over recent weeks. It all started with the contention by Mr Pretipaul Jaigobin that the horrendous acid attack on him was due to his outspokenness on irregularities at the level of the board. Lending credence to his contention was the stormy board meeting that was held just several days prior to the attack and the clear and entrenched divisions on the board that have become even more apparent in recent days.
It goes without saying that the board must be diligent and expeditious in addressing all of the issues of contention that have been raised by Mr Jaigobin and others. Some influential members of the board have already signalled that they do not believe that there is a serious problem and their views must also be well weighed. As it relates to the acid attack, that matter is in the purview of the Guyana Police Force. Unfortunately, there isn’t much public confidence that the police will be able to find and prosecute the attacker and therefore much of the mystery may remain.
As things go, Mr Jaigobin and others have enumerated a list of damning issues which the board will have to demonstrate it is capable of addressing fairly or that it is prepared to relinquish control of these matters so as to validate the independence of any investigation. This would be indispensable to the nurturing of public confidence in the directorate of the board.
The issues include: the manner of selection of contractors for the Anna Regina and LBI hostels, whether the selections offended guidelines on related party transactions, whether there had been unauthorized inflation of payments to the contractors, whether the construction had been supervised and whether the work had been of an acceptable standard and represented value for money.
It boggles the mind, it does so most severely that contracts were approved for both hostels without the inclusion of the standard defects liability period. How could seasoned business people aware of their fiduciary responsibilities as directors neglect to insist on the inscribing of the defects liability clause?
Then there is the contention by Mr Jaigobin, an accountant, that while the official financial statement by the board on last year’s Cricket Festival Twenty/20 showed a profit there had actually been a loss. A cursory glance at the statement from the board’s website does point to the thinness of the margin. The board expended $14.2m and made $14.9m, roughly a 5% return on investment or $700,000. There was one particular item of expenditure that should spark careful scrutiny: entertainment was pegged at $2.9m and disproportionate compared to prize money of $4.2m and accommodation of $445,736 and meals of $1.1m.
There was also the not insignificant problem of two constitutions being used by the board at the same time. What utter unconstitutionality and confusion. It is certainly not the example of constitutional order that an organization as important as the national cricket board should be exhibiting.
And rather embarrassingly there is the issue of the imprimatur of the board allegedly being improperly used for the purpose of enabling visas for persons who wouldn’t know the difference between twelfth man and third man. This, too, should be quite properly in the purview of the police as it appears to be a continuation of what has become an infamous national pastime.
Enter the Minister of Sport, Dr Frank Anthony. Upon the airing of the various grievances, the minister summoned the board to a meeting. There were a few notable absences and the minister set about trying to pour oil on troubled waters. It would have been ideal if the board had been able to heal itself without the intervention of the minister or eventually the West Indies Cricket Board as that would not bode well for its future ability to operate in a less fractious manner.
Ministerial intervention, certainly in the context of this government, raises the spectre of a managed outcome rather than justice and root and branch reform. Certainly there is the possibility of fallout that could embarrass the government as it has had a close relationship with cricket and the varied principals and stakeholders. Any unsavoury development therefore reflects on it too.
Some of Minister Anthony’s prescriptions bear this out. He is to enlist the services of the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) to scrutinize the financial records of the board when this should quite properly be a task for non-state auditors. The OAG’s mandate fully reflects on the public sector, government agencies and regions and would only exacerbate its well-known burdens and human resource deficiencies. Indeed, a section of the board had earlier agreed that the services of a private sector auditing firm would be enlisted but this was vetoed by one of the board mandarins. The OAG, increasingly shadowed by the government, was not the ideal choice.
The enlisting of Design and Construction Services was also not the preferred choice as there would have been a cogent case for putting this particular task out to verifiable tender to obviate any concerns of undue influence. Minister Anthony also availed the services of the Attorney General’s Chambers to assist in untangling the constitutional mess.
It cannot be put more baldly than to say that the Guyana Cricket Board faces an internal crisis which could sap public support, enervate its ability to function and draw unwanted questions about financial probity from the WICB and further afield. Therefore, bearing in mind the corrosiveness of some of the allegations made and the pitching of the acid, the board and the minister should be acutely aware that any investigation which falls short of expectations will not remedy the loss of credibility and confidence and could do irreparable harm to the game.
