A lawyer acting on behalf of the Guyana Cricket Board (GCB) has written the Minister of Culture, Youth and Sport stating that the proposed decision to replace the executive members of the GCB with that of members comprising an Interim Management Committee was is unlawful and arbitrary.
According to a copy of the letter seen by this newspaper, attorney-at-law Datadin in a December 23 memo to the honourable Minister of Culture, Youth and Sports Dr. Frank Anthony, stated that his client was a ‘lawful and legal entity” and was the “only entity recognized by the West Indies cricket Board and by extension the International Cricket Council.”
Axccording to the letter, nothing in the recent ruling of the Chief Justice has
altered the position that the GCB is the lawful body to administer cricket in Guyana.
The letter also reminded the minister that interference by a government in the administration of cricket is prohibited by the ICC.
Following is the text of Datadin’s letter.
Honourable Minister,
I am retained in association with Sir Fenton H. W. Ramsahoye S.C. to act on behalf of the Guyana Cricket Board; an association with its principal office at lot 221/ 222 Regent Road, Bourda, Georgetown. We are authorised to act by a unanimous decision of the Executive of the Guyana Cricket Board.
We are instructed that on the 22nd December, 2011 you convened a meeting at your offices at 10 a.m. and informed all present that it was your intention and that of the Government of Guyana to establish an Interim Management Committee (IMC) to administer cricket in Guyana in place and instead of our client.
We are further instructed that you informed all present that this would be done “almost immediately” and you further demanded that our client dissolve its administration prior to the formation of your IMC. The Executive Committee of my client association met subsequent to your meeting and unanimously rejected your demand.
We are further instructed that at the said meeting you stated clearly that the establishment of the IMC was necessary because of the ruling of Chief Justice Ian Chang made in HCA Number 319/W of 2011; Angela Haniff v Ramsey Ali et al on the 22nd day of August, 2011.
We are obliged to inform you that our client is a lawful and legal entity. They are the only entity recognised by the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) and by extension the International Cricket Council (ICC) to administer cricket in the State of Guyana. We are further obliged to inform you that nothing in the ruling made by the Honourable Chief Justice mentioned above has altered that position.
Additionally, our client has received and earned monies by its association with the WICB and ICC and are the sole entity responsible for the use and administration of those funds.
It is necessary that we bring to your attention the following essential matters:
1. Our client is the holder of shares in the WICB and the only recognized entity to administer cricket in Guyana. The IMC is unlikely to receive such recognition.
2. Our client’s board of administrators were duly elected at its AGM held on the 10th July, 2011. To suspend or remove same would be an affront to the democratic process set out in their constitution.
3. That interference by a Government in the affairs of the administration of cricket is specifically prohibited by the ICC which would result in Guyana’s membership to that body being suspended.
4. The suspension of Guyana’s membership would mean that participation in all forms of cricket would not be permitted and Guyanese players would no longer eligible to play for the West Indies nor participate in any cricket sanctioned by the ICC.
In any event, we are obliged to inform you that your proposed action is unlawful, arbitrary, capricious and devoid of all legal foundation. Be advised that any attempt to usurp the functions of our client in the administration of cricket in the State of Guyana would be vehemently resisted and the guidance of a Court would be sought to restrain your conduct.
We shall be obliged if we can have your urgent response in writing to the contents of the letter herein; more especially, if it is indeed your stated position that the Government of Guyana was entitled to establish an IMC because of the ruling mentioned herein of the Honourable Chief Justice and whether in fact you demanded that my client dissolve themselves so that your IMC can be put in place “almost immediately”. We require your response so that we may disclose same to a Court in any legal proceedings which may arise.
