Secretary of Buxton United Football Club (BUFC), Eton Moses, has questioned the transparency of the Guyana Football Federation (GFF) constitutional review process, stating that any opposition or enquiry into the procedure being employed by the local association shouldn’t be labelled as “political”.
This was disclosed during an exclusive interview with Stabroek Sport. Below features the entire transcript of the interview.
SS – Is the Constitution Review Committee transparent with the GFF Membership?
EM – Buxton United Football Club (BUFC) welcomes most of what was adumbrated by the Chairman of the Guyana Football Federation (GFF) Constitutional Reform Committee on 31/7/2022 in the Kaieteur News. Nothing that was reported, offered any evidence that debunked or weakened BUFC’s position on the present GFF constitutional reform process. Transparency was absent when the draft template supposedly done by FIFA was never sent to the general membership of the GFF, but they were expected to comment on it and put counter proposals. This is the Collin Klass GFF at play in 2022.
The present GFF executive introduced amendments to the constitution at the 2019 Congress for the first time, in breach of Article 35(3) and the present Chairman of the Constitutional Reform Committee sat quietly in that excursion. It is against this backdrop that BUFC is very suspicious of the present process. Given that there is a walking back on the proposal to take away Members voting right, the only glittery proposal remaining is the proposed amendment to have 3rd term for certain executives. This entire process is design to deliver on the 3rd agenda. The proposed amendments seen by BUFC thus far, are not designed to improve transparency in governance or increase the playing of Football.
Can the Chairman of the GFF Constitutional Reform Committee please tell the GFF members which other Caricom country is presently harmonizing its football constitution or did so in the last two years before Covid? Will the Chairman of the GFF Constitutional Reform Committee inform the GFF membership which of the FIFA proposed amendments will encourage “improved governance”? BUFC views the proposals to insert GFF address; change of Congress to Council; and delete a few nonfunctional Committees names, among other proposals, as cosmetic.
The Chairman of the GFF Constitutional Reform Committee bemoans the point that FIFA wants harmonization of the rules, but she, as Member of Congress remained silent when GFF relegated FIFA’s 2019 Regulations 5:2. The GFF allowed players to represent more than one Club at the same time without a transfer or a loan agreement from a transfer window. It is refreshing that the Chairman of the GFF Constitutional Reform Committee is seeking to reclaim ground, but misconceptions real or perceived will only be neutralised by sound research which is accompanied by logical arguments. Could this Committee be truthful with the GFF membership on its core aim?”
The seasoned administrator was responding to comments made by Chairman of the GFF Constitutional Review Committee, Andrea Johnson, during an article in another daily on July 31. Johnson, who is also the Guyana National Women’s Football Association (GNWFA) president, attempted to clarify several misconceptions about the constitutional reform process.
However, she was reported as saying, “It is sad to see a member of the GFF politicising this process and attacking the work of my Committee and the process so prematurely.”
Moses during an initial interview on July 25th, stated that the club will not support any third term proposal for the federation or the dismissing of voting rights of delegates, who arrive late to Congress during this constitutional review and reform process.
SS – Why is the committee and by extension the GFF, describing stakeholders’ views as ‘political’?
EM – Given, the general content of Chairman of the GFF Constitutional Reform Committee’s missive on 31/7/2022, BUFC saw no reason to countenance a rebuttal. However, a trend has emerged within the GFF domain where, when there is a contestation of ideas and the GFF and or its agents cannot field superior arguments, the opposing stakeholder is labelled as political. It is important to note that this is the second time, in 2022, that the GFF and or its agent has categorised a football stakeholder as political in order to demonise the person or group and, perhaps, to close the debate.
Madam Chairman, this approach will only hurt the GFF’s brand because pragmatic servants of the game may choose to leave and or potential great servants of the game will rethink their positions. Stakeholders are now forced to reflect on this tactic of the GFF. BUFC wishes to state, that as a committee set up by the GFF executive, the Chairperson is speaking on behalf of the GFF when she engages the media, hence the Committee’s position about the ‘political agenda’ of BUFC will be treated as a GFF position. It is thus zero-sum for the GFF to expect that it will win arguments that are in the public space just by labelling the presenter of those arguments as ‘political’.”
“This is an old, misused 15th century ploy which makes BUFC more suspicious of the process. Those wanting to consolidate power in football will stop at nothing and have their groupies hard at work. Hence, when the Chairman of the GFF Constitutional Reform Committee, on behalf of the GFF, states that, “a member of the GFF is politicizing this process. BUFC takes comfort in the words of Plato for its actions. Hence, Plato’s views on activism remain pertinent today when he said, ‘One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferior’.”
