WICB rejects Guyana Govt proposed legislation for GCB
Copied from Kaieteur News.
President of the West Indies Cricket Board Inc, Dr. Julian R. Hunte, has responded to the draft Guyana Cricket Administration Bill, as well as the amendments to the constitution of the Guyana Cricket Board, as proposed by the Government/IMC.
On behalf of the WICB he rejected in very strong language the proposals in the legislation that seek to make alterations to the current constitution and structure of the existing Guyana Cricket Board. It also seeks to disband the present entity.
Having reviewed the draft proposed …the WICB said on the Proposed Guyana Cricket Administration Bill 2012, that, “With respect to the proposed legislation, it is not our intention to do a clause by clause review or ‘mark-up’ of the draft, but to make a few broad observations as follows:
(i) We respectfully disagree with the view expressed in your letter that “this legislation is similar to legislation that was implemented in Trinidad and Tobago”. We have reviewed the Trinidad & Tobago Act (No. 34 of 1989), the sole purpose of which is to provide for the incorporation of the Trinidad and Tobago Cricket Board of Control (which was already in existence) and for matters incidental thereto (such as the administrative requirements which would accompany incorporation and include a broad outline of the aims and objects of the Cricket Board and the powers which it may exercise).”
In what is seen as moves to disband the current board, the draft legislation states in Article 6: “The entity, institution, body or collection of persons formerly known as the Guyana Cricket Board shall from the date of commencement of this Act cease to exist.”
It continued in Article 7: “There shall stand established from the date of commencement of this Act a body known at the Guyana Cricket Board to perform the functions conferred on it by or under this Act.”
The WICB responded, “By contrast (to the Trinidad and Tobago legislation) the proposed Guyana legislation seeks to dissolve the existing bodies and establish new bodies, rather than recognising and legitimising the structure which already exists, and has existed in its current form, at least since 1968.
“As we have stated to you in prior correspondence, the WICB cannot accept the dissolution of the recognised GCB. While we are not opposed to any Government investigating the affairs of a Member Board in order to ascertain whether any criminal offence has been committed, or contravention of any relevant legislation, we believe that the dissolution of a Board is not in keeping with the spirit of ensuring the independence of cricket administration and avoiding governmental interference.”
“Pending the conclusion of the ongoing legal matters, we must also reserve our position specifically in respect of the shares in the West Indies Cricket Board which were issued and belong to the Guyana Cricket Board”, the letter stated.
The proposed constitution also seeks to give the Sports Minister significant power in determining the operations of the GCB.
Article 10 of the draft legislation states: “The organisational meeting shall be held on such date as the Minister may appoint by statutory instrument.”
It further informs that the two factions of the Demerara Cricket Board remain and be allowed five delegates each to attend meetings with nine each from Berbice and Essequibo.
In response, the WICB response notes; (ii) “Also in contrast to the Trinidad & Tobago legislation, the proposed Guyana legislation seeks to bestow significant authority and oversight powers on the Minister charged with responsibility for sports, in our view, to the detriment of the independent functioning of the Guyana Cricket Board and contrary even to your proposed amendments to the Constitution.
“While we appreciate that there must be a working relationship between the Cricket Board and the Government for the efficient administration of cricket in the country, the proposed legislation goes considerably beyond what we would consider appropriate, by mandating what is effectively a reporting relationship between the Board and the Minister.”
“In light of the above, we must express our disappointment with the proposed legislation and would hope that you would consider further review and consultation on its contents,” the letter stated.