Members of the Guyana Public Service Co-operative Credit Union (GPSCCU) have filed contempt proceedings against the union’s management committee which they say ought to be jailed for flouting a Court order in relation to holding a special general meeting.
Credit union members Mehalai McAlmont, Keith Marks and Natasha Durant-Clements argue that while the management committee did comply with the order of the court to hold the special general meeting by the time stipulated, it failed to do so in accordance with the specific guidelines which had been set by the Court.
In their contempt application; McAlmont, Marks and Durant-Clements have accused the management committee of attempting to “frustrate” the process; and have “in all of their doing showed a clear intent not to comply” with the Court Order.
The Applicants say that the Respon-dents; having been aggrieved by the court’s ruling “openly showed their displeasure” by not following the Order and among other things, publishing the notice of meeting late and in a singular newspaper.
On November 30th of last year, High Court Judge Navindra Singh declared that members of the GPSCCU were entitled to demand a special general meeting and refuted arguments of the union’s management committee that that request constituted a dispute.
McAlmont, Marks and Durant-Clements said that while the Committee of Management did hold the October 24th, 2022 meeting as stipulated by the Court, they adhered to none of the processes and procedures that went into the April 2021 general meeting which they needed to, even though they were fully aware of them having participated in it.
“They chose not to,” follow the procedures the Applicants say.
The Applicants also complain that among other things, the committee outlined no object/agenda of the meeting, nor was there any advertisement of nomination day for potential office bearers.
They contend, too, that the Respondents procrastinated in contacting the experienced Trinidadian Information Techno-logy agency which was supposed to facilitate the online voting and live-streaming process; virtual meeting; and also that they refused to set up polling stations in any region.
The Applicants argue that the “Respondents wilfully, deliberately and unlawfully failed to comply” with the court order and that they should be restrained from calling or holding an Annual General Meeting until those orders are complied with.
Among other things, the Applicants are calling for the errant management committee members to be jailed and for declarations that they acted with material irregularity by refusing to abide by the Orders of Court, and that they abused their power and “upset the democratic design of the Registered Society, and in the face of impending removal acted illegally and arbitrarily.”
Background
Recognizing that Trevor Benn and Patrick Mentore were the duly elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Union respectively, Justice Singh had found that the notice informing of the demand for the meeting which had been set for June 25th of last year, had been lawfully issued.
In his judgment, he noted that Regulation 16 of the Cooperative Society Act permits the applicants as members of the Cooperative Society to demand a special general meeting.
He went on to declare, among other things, that the Applicants had satisfied the requirement of the number needed to present a demand, being in excess of 25 members; and found further that the management committee (the Respondents) were being disingenuous by stating that the Applicants had not satisfied that requirement.
The case involved three members of the GPSCCU who had petitioned the Court for declarations that Benn and Mentore were the credit union’s duly elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman, and that a Special General Meeting of Members which had been scheduled for June 25th, 2022; be allowed.
After seeking to remove Benn, the management committee itself came under pressure when over 375 members moved for the removal of the entire body and the announcement of new elections within 14 days. That number had increased to nearly 2,000.
The committee and its members have been at loggerheads over a No-Confidence Motion the committee said it brought against Benn.
By way of a fixed date application (FDA), union members McAlmont, Marks and Durant-Clements through their attorney Roysdale Forde SC, moved to the Court seeking to have Benn, Mentore and other “duly” elected members of the management committee, recognized.
Their challenge came on the heels of one faction of the union advertising in the press objecting to the Special General Meeting of Members which was being called for June 25th by what was being described as a rival faction headed by Benn.
With thousands of members and in control of a large amount of money, the credit union had become embroiled in a bitter power struggle.
Manifestations of the infighting were seen with the replacement by the management committee of Mentore, with one of their own.
Mentore had complied with a request from members and given notice that the Special General Meeting, which would include electing a new Committee, would be held on June 25th.
It was under Mentore, who was then acting as Chair, that members moved to have a Special General Meeting called on June 25th so that they could remove the entire committee, having stated that they had no confidence in it.
“Pursuant to Regulation 16 of the Co-operatives Societies Regulations, Cap 88:01, I hereby give notice that a special General Meeting… will be held on Saturday June 25th 2022 at 10:00hrs …,” that notice stated, informing that motions to be brought before the meeting must be submitted to the Secretary of the Committee, two days before.
The actions of the committee triggered the ire of members, who voiced their disquiet, accusing the committee of being dictatorial.
Forde said that Justice Singh rejected the Respondents’ argument that the issue of a special general meeting constituted a dispute and was therefore caught by Section 49 of the Act.
Forde said the Judge in fact stated that Section 49 did not cover the issue of a
special general meeting, and that the Respondents could not be allowed to subvert the legislation.
“The Respondents were not allowed to stop short and appoint a new Chairman and then say that the Applicants must start the process all over again,” counsel noted.
Forde said the Judge declared that a Special General Meeting of a Registered Society can be convened at any time by the members of the Society, pursuant to Regulation 16 of the Society’s Regulations.
He said the Court also declared that where 25 or more members of a Registered Society which consists of more than 100 members demand a Special General Meeting, it shall be the duty of the Chairman of the Committee of Management to convene such a meeting giving eight days’ notice, pursuant to Regulation 16.
The Court has ordered the Committee of Management to issue a notice within the next 10 days fixing scheduling a new Special General Meeting to be held no later than October 24th, 2022.
