Dear Editor,
The decision of the Guyana Football Federation (GFF) General Council to refuse to accept the challenge thrown out by the Federation’s President, Christopher Matthias for a live televised debate on national television is a commendable gesture, when it’s considered that apart from giving a 48-hour ultimatum for a response from disgruntled members, Matthias had the temerity to advocate that the cost for the televised debate would be met from the coffers of the GFF.
My, oh my! A cash-strapped and debt-ridden GFF, devoid of a proper functioning executive, reduced to two individuals from a total of an elected six, grants the President the privilege of unconstitutionally spending much needed cash to pay for a televised debate? Does this conform to requirements of accountability, transparency and democracy? Was it forwarded to the Finance Committee for deliberation? The points highlighted by members of the GFF Congress challenging Matthias to a public debate via the print media are justifiable, however, since the relevant constitutional support is also evident, although I’m not in agreement with item 5 dealing with personality issues – ie, previous roles as Customs officer, church member and Customs broker, to name a few.
Editor, in my humble opinion an ultimatum should have been given to Mr Matthias to respond, failing which the next step would be to reconvene a Special General Council Meeting, specifically dealing with the vote of no confidence. By the way, I do hope all the affiliates of the GFF, including the Associations governed by IMC’s were duly informed in writing within a specific time-frame of the reconvening of the meeting, along with the remnants of the GFF executive.
In the final analysis, accountability to the various stakeholders of the sport, transparency in deliberations and adherence to constitutionality are all essential components of ensuring that the actions of the General Council are above board.
Within some Associations, there must be a few members of the executive who would not be supportive of the General Council’s decisions, while going the extra mile to sanction any member who had attended the reconvened Congress, even though that would have been in the capacity of an observer. Then the notion of clubs giving their respective executives the mandate to support the vote of no confidence in defiance of democratic norms, remains another puzzle. But this is only a reflection of what transpired when the UDFA executive was banned.
Yours faithfully,
Lester Sealey
