Dear Editor,
While I was not privy to a copy of FIFA’s mandate to the Normalisation Committee, nevertheless, in my opinion the term ‘Normalisation Committee’ can be equated with an ‘Interim Management Committee,’ which apart from being appointed, usually elects its own Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer from within the committee unless the terms of reference stipulate otherwise. Is this the case with the Normalisation Committee (NC)? The principal players within the FIFA corridors of power have conveniently shifted the goalposts to suit their own agenda, which will create further dissension among the General Council membership of the GFF.
Under the guise that Guyana can be banned by FIFA if in their estimation the work of the committee is being stymied, a dictatorial policy, it seems, is being foisted upon the General Council. No request in writing, for example, can be made to convene an emergency General Council meeting in contravention of the GFF’s constitution. Is this fair play? Definitely not, since the NC’s Chairman is being empowered to operate as though he’s unaccountable to the local football fraternity and is only answerable to the dictates of FIFA/CONCACAF.
The Chairman has declared publicly that there would be no General Council meeting until September which is within the same period when the life of the NC comes to an end. If so why is a constitutional mandate being ignored?
In the final analysis the GFF’s constitution must continue to be the primary document in relation to rules, regulations and laws until such time that the relevant amendments are made. Its rules should be adhered to where appointments and suspensions, et al, are concerned and in this regard the appointment of a General Secretary, along with a Deputy, is unconstitutional, and could be challenged. In addition, there was no consultation with the General Council in relation to the respective appointments.
Yours faithfully,
Lester Sealey