Rescuing the Guyana Cricket Board

Even though it did not produce the desired result, Guyanese, particularly sport aficionados, should be exceedingly grateful to Ms Angela Haniff whose legal action against the executive of the Guyana Cricket Board, following the latter’s thoroughly scandalous elections, has exposed the quagmire in which cricket bodies have been functioning.

Ms Haniff sought to restrain the Ramsey Ali-led board from functioning but in his ruling Chief Justice Mr Ian Chang said that all of the associations embroiled in the matter were legal non entities and have been so from their inception. Therefore they cannot sue or be sued.

The Chief Justice stated in his ruling “The court can therefore give no recognition to the plaintiff Angela Haniff in her capacity as Secretary (of) the B.C.B (Berbice Cricket Board) or in her capacity as a delegate of the B.C.B when B.C.B. has no capacity to sue or be sued in (a) court of law. Similarly, the court can give no recognition to either of the named defendants in their capacities of office-holders or representative(s) of the G.C.B. since the G.C.B. has no legal capacity to sue or be sued in a court of law. In short, all the parties before this court are legal nonentities and the court is not the proper forum or avenue for any relief or redress involving the G.C.B. or any of its members, the B.C.B., the D.C.B or the E.C.B.”

Chief Justice Chang further pointed out that since the court could give no recognition to the G.C.B as a legal body it could not address the election of office bearers within the association.

It is beyond comprehension why the G.C.B. and its constituent bodies never pursued incorporation and the other attributes of a legal persona. Considering their representation of all things cricket for decades it must be a reflection of the informality and insouciance with which sport has been traditionally played, organized and administrated here. This situation can no longer subsist as these associations and boards are engaged in serious business which requires legal underpinning to ensure that avenues of redress are available and that the sport bodies would operate in accordance with a defined legal framework. Furthermore, these bodies relate to regional and international cricket bodies in a manner that presupposes that there is a legal matrix in which decisions could be executed. They also engage with large sections of the public where gate fees are paid and gather receipts and sponsorship from a broad array of sponsors.

Indeed, as the Chief Justice pointed out “These private unincorporated umbrella associations (and their unincorporated membership associations) are accountable to no person or authority except themselves for the making and implementation of Rules or for the use of finances received whether from donations or matches played under their auspices. If moneys are stolen or misappropriated, neither they nor their unincorporated membership associations can be complainants in either civil or criminal proceedings – for lack of legal personality. They make their own Rules and procedures for the conduct of their affairs – breach of which cannot be challenged in court for the simple reason that they and their members are legal nonentities”.

The Chief Justice then went on to argue that disagreements among the unincorporated umbrella associations could have a `domino’ disruptive effect on the game at the national level. Consequently he posited that the legislature might see it fit to intervene. There was also the suggestion that the Ministry of Sport play an interim role in rescuing the premier sport in the country from the clutches of disarray.

Unfortunately, the executive has not been an exemplar of model behaviour in terms of transparency, accountability and adherence to the rule of law. Placing the sport in the hands of the executive is a sure recipe for pure political opportunism as evidenced by President Jagdeo’s swift intervention in the matter whereas other edicts from the court, far more important, have been routinely rebuffed by the executive.

While President Jagdeo and his Minister of Sport were eager to intervene and to take credit for `rescuing’ cricket, it appears that the cold, harsh prospect of sanctions from the WICB against Guyana over any attempt to displace the office bearers from the discredited elections was dissuasive.

Ideally, one would hope that multi-partisan legislative action will eventually lead to a regularizing of the legal standing of the various county associations and that the GCB would then be transformed into a legal entity and a board of the boards of its constituents.

WICB or no WICB, the Guyanese public should not have to put up with crooked elections as was the case recently with the GCB. In a country that has had a long and tortured history of rigged elections at both the national level and in the inner sanctums of political parties, this must not be tolerated at all.

The Ramsay Ali-led executive should have been out on the first ball it faced. It has no credibility whatsoever on two scores: the shenanigans of the July 10 `election’ which provided no basis for an adequate expression of democratic choice and the now public exposing of the ramshackle framework that cricket has been functioning in. It should tender its resignation immediately and so advise the WICB.

A general members meeting of the GCB and interested stakeholders should be immediately called for two purposes: to begin the  process of establishing the legal standing of the GCB and to appoint an interim body shorn of the recent contestants which would then prepare for free and verifiably fair elections. There is no other way. Members of the cricketing public have a role to play in ensuring that the present executive is made aware that it cannot be business as usual.

In his cri de coeur by way of letter in the October 27 edition of Stabroek News, Mr Pretipaul Jaigobin who suffered an acid attack after raising concerns about finances and other matters at a GCB meeting asked what else needed to be done for fairness to prevail.

Said Mr Jaigobin “Since the court has no jurisdiction and the relevant authorities have failed to act what must the concerned stakeholders do for justice? My burn scars present permanent evidence of the wages received for doing good in a climate that seeks to embrace and support wrongdoers”. The work and good intentions of Mr Jaigobin and others must not be demolished by the machinations of a few in the cricket firmament who have selfish motives at hand.