The recent exoneration of former FIFA referee, Roy MacArthur, by the Guyana Football Federation (GFF) Disciplinary Committee on February 27, 2023 for his alleged involvement in the sexual harassment of female officials, has raised more questions than answers.
A trip down memory lane is required to provide clarity of the entire episode.
The Disciplinary Committee, headed by Chairman, Eusi Anderson, and also comprising Shawnette Austin, Lancelot Baptiste, and Joshua Griffith, voted unanimously to rescind MacArthur’s suspension, which lasted in excess of four years.
This was based on their view that there was inadequate evidence of wrongdoing to continue MacArthur’s exile from the sport’s fraternity. The entity disclosed that no specific allegation or act of sexual harassment in the report from the Board of Inquiry (BoI), was levelled against MacArthur.
According to the Disciplinary Committee in their official correspondence to the GFF, “It has come to the attention of this Disciplinary Committee that parts of the Board of Inquiry’s mandate were to investigate the sexual harassment allegations against Mr. McArthur. During the course of the investigation, the Board of Inquiry considered it expedient to, and extended to each of the accusers, a guarantee of anonymity in exchange for their testimony.”
“This proved to be challenging for the principles of natural justice to be applied to Roy Mc Arthur with respect to his ability to confront and interrogate his accusers at this Disciplinary Committee”, the release further stated.
MacArthur, who was also a Referees Assessor, was provisionally suspended by the federation in January 2019 whilst then Head of Referees, Stanley Lancaster, was dismissed with immediate effect, resulting from the findings of a BoI.
The inquiry, which commenced in March 2018, was commissioned following allegations of sexual harassment by several female referees against senior members of the referees’ fraternity. The five-member commission that presided over the BOI consisted of Dr. Karen Pilgrim, Dr. Melissa Ifill, Karen Joseph, Karen De Souza, and Joy Nichola Marcus. At the end of the inquiry, the report was submitted to the GFF on November 19, 2018. Though the lifting of MacArthur’s suspension is indicative of a system that is to some degree functional, albeit lethargic, several enquiries immediately emanate at this juncture.
In particular, the circumstances of Lancaster and former federation member, Keith O’Jeer, immediately come into focus.
Euripides, a Greek Tragedian once uttered, “Silence is true wisdom’s best reply.” However, this maxim is inapplicable in the current condition, and is not indicative of the intellectual sap or lack thereof of the GFF. The quote of Author K.L. Toth is more appropriate, which states, “Sometimes the sound of silence is the most deafening sound of all.” That has truly typified the GFF’s position expressly on the O’Jeer case.
O’Jeer, who was the then Berbice Football Association President, was suspended in April 2018 for alleged inappropriate conduct following a meeting with the GFF Executive Committee.
Although details surrounding O’Jeer’s suspension have not been revealed by the federation to date, it was disclosed by sources that the incident in question was brought to light by a prominent member of the football fraternity. He was quietly replaced by then Upper Demerara Football Association President, Terrence Mitchell, at the 2019 Congress.
As of this writing, the GFF has remained tight-lipped on the O’Jeer episode. It begs the question, what is the status of the O’Jeer case?
Is O’Jeer before the Disciplinary Committee and if no, why was this infraction not brought before this body given the nature of the allegation?
Did O’Jeer face any form of a BoI for the allegation, and if yes, who were the members of the committee? Similarly, when and where did this BoI occur, and why was it not made public by the GFF similar to what occurred with the MacArthur and Lancaster issue?
More importantly, why wasn’t O’Jeer brought before the same BoI as the two senior referee officials?
Is the federation suggesting that O’Jeer is a sacred cow and that they are afraid to discipline one of their own in the rightful manner by utilising the constitutionally mandated structures and mechanisms?
Is the GFF intentionally trying to sweep this matter under the proverbial rug in a bid to maintain some semblance of an upright image?
I guess some things are simply by ‘intentional’ design.
It is truly terrible that this posture has characterised the GFF’s action and position on the O’Jeer subject matter. Is the GFF by its clandestine approach to the O’Jeer incident, indicating that some individuals are above reproach, and the law?
Where does this sound familiar; or rather, Orwellian to be exact.
This is the same federation that often orates the importance of women in the sport, and its commitment to developing and creating a conducive environment for their growth.
However, lest we forget, this is also the same administration that only opted to conduct a BoI into the referees’ harassment scandal after the matter was brought to light by several sections of the media fraternity. A similar acknowledgement of the O’Jeer suspension was only forthcoming after it was exposed by local press.
This is also same council, formerly executive committee, which treated our Lady Jaguars like second class citizens, as it maintained the disgraceful practice for several years of not paying the senior women’s team any match fees, despite affording the men’s programme that latitude.
The aforesaid behaviour of the GFF necessitated the Lady Jaguars dispatching a letter in 2021 to Minister of Culture, Youth and Sport, Charles Ramson Jr, highlighting the enduring unequal allocation of resources by the local governing body to the program. The correspondence was also sent to First Lady Arya Ali.
So much for equality. And while the GFF has stated that they intend to remedy this reprehensible act, the federation is yet to publicly disclose if a solution has been attained, and what is the financial package afforded the ladies.
This is immutable evidence of their position with regard to women, which seems to have a rather convenient undertone.
Meanwhile, given that MacArthur has been exonerated, will Lancaster also have his date with the Disciplinary Committee given that both individuals were the primary focus of the BoI?
Culturally, we reside in a realm that is inclined to subservience not objectivity. To ask questions, to stray from that unwritten doctrine is tantamount to committing a cardinal sin and sadly, to risk censure and ostracism.
At the risk of sounding overly pessimistic, one supposes that in our corner of the world there will always be stratification where the rules are to be applied and that there will always be the ‘untouchables’.
