Appeal Court to hear arguments in DCB elections case Jan. 15 

Arudranauth Gossai
Arudranauth Gossai

The beginning of the new year is set to be a decisive juncture for the administration of cricket in Guyana as the Court of Appeal is set to pronounce on a portion of the Cricket Administration Act, which prevents the staging of the Demerara Cricket Board’s (DCB) elections. 

Initially, a stay of proceedings was granted to prevent the DCB from holding its elections and so, the Court of Appeal now has to decide whether to lift that stay.

 Attorney-at-Law, Arudranauth Gossai, who represents the interest of a number of cricket stakeholders here, told Stabroek Sport yesterday that the matter is set for hearing in the new year.

“The stay application is set for January 15 [2021] before justice [Rishi] Persaud to hear in relation to the Demerara Cricket Board election,” said Gossai, who is in favour of the elections being held.

The Court of Appeal in September this year restored to full force the Cricket Administration Act, which paved the way for the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport to set in motion plans to elect the Guyana and Demerara Cricket Boards.

The Court discharged the original Order which had suspended major parts of the Act, thereby bringing the legislation back into force. During the suspension of the Act, High Court Judge, Justice Navindra Singh had ordered the election of the cricket boards, but Gossai had said that “the [Anand] Sanasie group had applied to the Court of Appeal to stop the elections on the grounds that the Cricket Act was suspended…so I had agreed to the staying of the elections because with the Act being suspended, we couldn’t have elections under the Act.”

Now that the suspension has been lifted, Gossai explained that “Justice Rishi Persaud has to now determine whether he will grant a further stay of the election in light of the Act being no longer suspended.”

He noted: “The application for the stay was premised on the Act being suspended… now that the act is in full force, the stay application will be refused,” he added. 

The Cricket Administration Bill, which was passed in 2014, seeks to provide legal administrative guidelines for cricket. It allows the Guyana Cricket Board (GCB) to be established as a corporate body comprising the Demerara, Essequibo, and the Berbice Cricket Boards, all of which are to be made corporate entities too. 

A section of the Act also addresses the issue of phantom voting for the election of persons to administrative positions, the Department of Public Information (DPI) had noted. It will give limited power to the Minister of Sport, whose only role will be to appoint the regulator. 

The Act provides for better financial accountability, and as such, the GCB would be required to present timely audited financial reports to the National Assembly, as well as the National Sports Commission.

Also of importance to restoring normalcy to the administration of cricket here is the appointment of a Cricket Ombudsman. The Ombudsman, according to the Cricket Administration Act, is tasked with the responsibility of verifying the legitimacy of the clubs that fall under the aegis of the various county boards, namely Berbice, Demerara, and Essequibo, which comprise the Guyana Cricket Board.

The focus, in this instance, is primarily using the office of the Ombudsman to create a clear solution to the infraction in Demerara. East Coast, like many of the committees is fractured as it relates to who the legitimate officer holders are to organise cricket and who will be the officials to vote at any future DCB elections.  

But Guyana is currently without an Ombudsman after High Court Judge, Justice Fidela Corbin in February this year quashed the appointment of Stephen Lewis. Lewis was initially appointed as the Cricket Ombudsman in May 2018 by the GCB but his appointment was challenged in the High Court by the Berbice Cricket Board.

However, Lewis, an attorney by profession, was reappointed to the post by the then Minister with responsibility for Sports, Dr. George Norton in March 2019 under section 17 of the Act but his appointment was challenged on the grounds that it was illegal.