Last week, we reflected on the state of cricket in the 1970s when, weather permitting, we could have watched some 26 games being played in Georgetown on a weekend among the four levels of cricket. There was also organized school cricket at both the primary and secondary levels. Today, there are only seven or eight cricket grounds, and very little cricket is being played on them. Organised school cricket pales in comparison with the occurrences of the past.
This sorrowful state of cricket, the premier national sport that produced so many international greats, is due mainly to administrators putting their own personal interest ahead of that of the game. As we approach the elections for office bearers of the Guyana Cricket Board (Cricket Guy Inc.), we made a sincere call on all the area boards and associations as well as the individual cricket clubs to elect persons who are capable of bringing cricket to the state of its former glory and who can put aside their personal interest in favour of the broader interest.
Today, we examine the Guyana Cricket Administration Act which was passed in the National Assembly on 15 May 2014 and assented to by the President on 4 August 2014. The aim of the Act is to bring about order in the administration of cricket and to improve its governance and financial accountability arrangements. However, the Act is yet be implemented because of the then acting Chief Justice’s ruling of 29 April 2015 that restrained the holding of elections under the Act in respect of the Guyana Cricket Board and the county boards of Essequibo, Demerara and Berbice until the hearing and determination of the substantive action. A notice of appeal was filed on 13 May 2015, but the matter is yet to be heard.
Background to the Guyana Cricket Administration Act
The Guyana Cricket Board Act came about in a genuine attempt to revive the state of cricket and to resolve the chaos that thrived following disputes surrounding the election of office bearers at both the national and county levels. It has its genesis in the High Court ruling in the case of Angela Haniff (Secretary of the Berbice Cricket Board) versus the Guyana Cricket Board where the plaintiff sought to restrain the Guyana Board from functioning as a result of disputed elections of the Guyana Cricket Board held on 10 June 2011. The then acting Chief Justice ruled that the parties involved were not legal entities and therefore could not sue or be sued. The Stabroek News editorial of 31 October 2011 quoted the following remarks of the Chief Justice:
These private unincorporated umbrella associations (and their unincorporated membership associations) are accountable to no person or authority except themselves for the making and implementation of Rules or for the use of finances received whether from donations or matches played under their auspices. If moneys are stolen or misappropriated, neither they nor their unincorporated membership associations can be complainants in either civil or criminal proceedings – for lack of legal personality. They make their own Rules and procedures for the conduct of their affairs – breach of which cannot be challenged in court for the simple reason that they and their members are legal nonentities.
The related Bill was tabled in the Assembly in December 2012 and was referred to a Select Committee for detailed consideration. According to the then Minister responsible for sport, the Bill was drafted after extensive consultations with all stakeholders and was in conformity with the recommendations contained in the ruling by the High Court which indicated that the legislature might see it fit to intervene, with the Ministry of Sport playing an interim role “in rescuing the premier sport in the country from the clutches of disarray”. The Bill also brought to an end the life of an Interim Management Committee (IMC) which was established to manage cricket until the relevant legislation is passed. However, the IMC was never allowed to function through the actions of one of the parties to the disputed elections in influencing the West Indies Cricket Board not to recognise the IMC.
While legislators were busy drafting the Cricket Administration Act, an unfortunate parallel development took place whereby one of parties to the disputed elections incorporated the Guyana Cricket Board under the name “D.E. B Essentials Organisation Inc.” on 24 August 2011. This should have never been allowed to happen since such action undermined the efforts of our parliamentarians to bring back respectability to cricket in Guyana. On 22 December 2011, a Deed of Transfer was executed transferring all assets to the newly established company while on 4 August 2014, the name “D.E.B Essentials Organisation Inc.” was changed to “Cricket Guy Inc.”, no doubt in recognition of the inappropriateness of the original name of the company.
The Cricket Administration Act
The Act contains seven parts and four schedules. The first part deals with preliminary matters and need not detain us. Part II provides for the incorporation of the Guyana Cricket Board as a body corporate, consistent with the ruling of the Chief Justice, with the following objectives:
- to advance and improve cricket in Guyana by organising, promoting and controlling first class and other cricket competitions;
- to arrange, control, and regulate inter-territorial and international tournaments promoted or sanctioned by the West Indies Cricket Board directly or through appointed agents or representatives;
- to promote, control, regulate and supervise all cricket in Guyana organized under the auspices of the Guyana Cricket Board; and
- to perform all other such acts or things as may seem to the Cricket Board to be necessary or conducive to the welfare of cricket in Guyana and the West Indies in general.
An important aspect of this part of the Act relates to the first elections of members of the Executive Committee of the Board. The Minister responsible for sport in consultation with the West Indies Cricket Board shall appoint a Cricket Ombudsman who is responsible for verifying the register of Clubs and for performing the functions of returning officer for the first elections. Thereafter, the role of the Minister shall cease, and all future Ombudsmen will be elected by a two thirds majority of members present and voting at an extraordinary meeting of the Board. These are not unreasonable provisions of the Act, considering the problems of the past relating to disputed Elections, the intervention of the Court and the granting of several injunctions, all of which are having an adverse effect on cricket. Contrary to the assertions made by certain groups, it is certainly not a case where the Government was trying to impose its will on the administration of cricket since subsequent elections are to be held on the date appointed by the Executive Committee by notice in the daily newspapers of wide circulation.
Part III provides for the Essequibo Cricket Board, Demerara Cricket Board and Berbice Cricket Board to be established as corporate entities. Each of these boards shall be responsible for encouraging the formation of cricket associations and sub-associations or clubs, and for developing standards and conditions to which these bodies are required to adhere before they become eligible for registration with the county boards. Each county board must also maintain a register for this purpose.
The Act also recognizes the role of a Cricket Ombudsman as it relates to the county boards. Where Two or more candidates are vying for the position of Cricket Ombudsman, and no candidate receives a two thirds majority, there shall be a run-off between the two candidates.
Part IV deals with the finances of the Guyana Cricket Board which shall include:
(a) fees, dues and any other money of a similar nature;
(b) any property or investment acquired by, or vested in the Guyana Cricket Board;
(c) sums arising from loans, gifts, grants, sponsorship or donations;
(d) dividends or other moneys received from the West Indies Cricket Board; and
(e) all other money or property which may in any manner become payable to or vested in the Guyana Cricket Board in respect of its functions or by reason of any connected matter.
The funds of the Guyana Cricket Board are to be used to meet the salaries and allowances of the staff of the Guyana Cricket Board and of the Cricket Ombudsman. The financial year shall be a period of twelve months ending 31 December each year.
Part V refers to annual financial reporting and audit.
The Guyana Cricket Board and each country board shall maintain proper books of account and related documents, and shall submit to the appointed auditor not later than three months of the close of the financial year, a statement of account, including its balance sheet in a form conforming with established accounting principles. The appointed auditor must be a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Guyana and the holder of a practising certificate from the Institute.
The report of the auditor shall be laid before the National Assembly within one month of the completion of the audit. Since the requirements of the Companies Act must also be adhered to, the assumption is that the audited accounts must first be tabled at the annual general meetings of these boards. Critics may argue that, since the Government is not expected to provide funding for these boards, there should be no reporting to the National Assembly. Perhaps, there is an intention to do so, which will be good for cricket. However, legislators, perhaps in their own deliberate judgment, might have felt that, cricket being the single most important game from a national perspective, they need to be periodically apprised, especially as regards the proper accountability for the finances of the Guyana Cricket Board and the county boards. One suggestion is that, in addition to having audited accounts tabled in the National Assembly, there should be an annual report highlighting, among others, all the activities undertaken during the year and the results of such activities.
Finally, this column urges the Attorney General to take whatever steps that are considered necessary, with due regard to the independence of the Judiciary, to ensure an early hearing of the appeal against the ruling of the then acting Chief Justice in relation to the implementation of the Cricket Administration Act. To the extent that we fail to recognize the sad state of cricket and cricket administration in Guyana and do something about it, cricket will remain in the doldrums, and promising and talented youths will fall by the wayside.
