Dear Editor,
I wish to reply to a letter authored by Intikab Sankar, bearing the caption ‘AG needs to clarify exactly what the CJ ordered in the Angela Haniff v GCB matter,’ which was published in the Kaieteur News of January 15.
Before, I deal with the crux of the request made by this letter writer, I feel compelled to address certain fundamental issues:
(1) I am aware that Intikab Sankar is the Nom de plume of a person who is an ‘officer‘ of the defunct Guyana Cricket Board. The personal attacks directed to the Honourable Chief Justice and I are duly noted and will in no way advance the cause Mr Sankar advocates.
(2) The position which the government has adopted on the cricket issue, long pre-dated my appointment as Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs.
(3) Indeed, after the ruling of Chief Justice Chang which was made on August 22, 2011, the government position was made public and meetings were held by President Bharrat Jagdeo and the Minister of Sport with those who purported to represent the Guyana Cricket Board and others deemed to be important stakeholders, where the government’s position was unequivocally articulated.
(4) Again, those meetings long preceded my appointment. Therefore, the impression conveyed that I am the original architect and sole protagonist of the government’s position on this matter is hopelessly erroneous.
On August 22, 2011, the Chief Justice dismissed a case filed by Angela Haniff, in her capacity as Secretary of the Berbice Cricket Board v Ramsey Ali et al, who purported to be officers of the Guyana Cricket Board, and the reasons for his dismissal of the proceedings are contained in a ten page ruling. This document like any other ruling of a court of competent jurisdiction is a public document and is available to the public and the media. It is certainly not my function to make it available.
The Honourable Chief Justice made the following seminal pronouncements in his ruling: (1) The Guyana Cricket Board is not a board of an association as the appellation falsely suggests, but it is rather a name of an association. It is an unincorporated association and it cannot sue or be sued, it cannot own property neither can it attract liability.
(2) It is an unincorporated private organization which is comprised of three members, namely the Berbice Cricket Board, the Demerara Cricket Board and the Essequibo Cricket Board; the BCB, the DCB and the ECB are all incorporated associations (not boards) which are incapable of suing or be sued.
(3) Like the GCB, the membership of the county boards comprises unincorporated associations and not persons.
The consequence of the foregoing was summarized by the Chief Justice at page 5 as follows:
“The Court can therefore give no recognition to the plaintiff, Angela Haniff, in her capacity as Secretary of the BCB or in her capacity as a delegate of the BCB when BCB has no capacity to sue or be sued in court of law. Similarly, the court can give no recognition to either of the named defendants in their capacities as office-holders or representatives of the GCB since the GCB 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 GCB or any of its members, the BCB, the DCB and the ECB.
“Since the court can give no recognition to the GCB as a legal body, it cannot recognize the election of office bearers within that association. The position would have been different if the membership of the GCB had comprised of persons. But since the membership of GCB also is comprised of unincorporated associations (i.e. the BCB, the DCB and the ECB), the court cannot give recognition to those members. Nor can the court recognize even the members of those member associations since, as the Constitution of the DBC shows, their members are also unincorporated bodies. It is difficult to see how those member associations could have sent delegates to vote at the GCB election since their members were not persons but rather legally non-existent entities.”
The above constitutes, what I conceive to be the ratio decidendi of the Chief Justice’s ruling.
At the latter part of the ruling, the Chief Justice recommended to both the executive and the legislature that they remedy this anomalous state of affairs. At page 9 His Honour adumbrated thus:
“It is a matter of common knowledge (a fact of notoriety) that there exists a Ministry responsible for sports in general. This indicates that the State has assumed executive responsibility for the welfare, promotion and proper administration of sports in Guyana – and the premier sport in Guyana is that of cricket. Since the judiciary as an arm of the State is powerless to provide remedial action, the remedy must, of course, lie either in the exercise of the power of the legislature and/or the executive.
In the present state of affairs, while a legislative structure for the administration of cricket is desirable, there may be the immediate need for the Minister responsible for sports to impose his executive will in the national interest until such time as Parliament can provide a more permanent welfare structure. The Minister can take immediate interim remedial action while the legislature seeks to provide a more permanent solution. Of course, it is not the function of the court to make decisions of policy. However, the court is not powerless to state in which branches of State the remedial power lies and the need for the exercise of such power.”
It behoves, any executive to heed the recommendations emanating from the judiciary to rectify and identify lacunae. This is a very sacrosanct tradition in Westminster model constitutions hallowed by time from which this executive is not prepared to depart. The establishment of a politically independent Interim Management Committee is “the interim remedial action” which the Minister of Sport has taken pursuant to the recommendation made by the Honourable Chief Justice. The composition and mandate of this body is public knowledge.
Additionally, almost immediately after the said ruling, a number of cricket associations through their respective representatives detailed to the Minister of Sport, a number of grave allegations against those who purport to act as the Guyana Cricket Board. Clearly, a responsible government cannot turn a blind eye to such serious allegations and the consequent abysmal and parlous state to which our national sport has plummeted.
The judiciary has urged the executive to rectify what the Chief Justice termed “a matter of national and general public interest.” The Guyanese cricket-loving public want their government to act to save their beloved game from complete destruction. The government has acted.
This process commenced long before my appointment and will be taken to its conclusion. The handful of people who are opposed to this process are those who have hijacked cricket from the Guyanese and West Indian people and converted the game into a monopolized financial tool from which but only a few derive the rich benefits, while the game and the welfare of cricketers cascade into constant decline.
The entire Caribbean is looking keenly at Guyana with a view to emulate.
Yours faithfully,
Mohabir Anil Nandlall MP
Attorney General and Minister
of Legal Affairs
