Quote:The WICB moves the third test against New Zealand from Guyana to Barbados By TDN Wire Staff
June 03, 2014 9:18 A.M

In addition to the issue of the legislation, problems continue to plague the Guyana Cricket Board (GCB) after its elections which were held last year were deemed to be unconstitutional. The Guyana government intervention was aimed at remedying this situation, but the ICC rules are clear that the cricket affairs must be conducted by an association that is independent of government interference.

Just as in this current case the third Test in 2012 against Australia was moved from Guyana to Dominica after the Guyana government attempted to bring the cricket administration under its control.

Quote:THE NATIONALIZATION OF THE ASSETS OF THE GUYANA CRICKET BOARD  June 7, 2014 
The government of Guyana was long forewarned that the West Indies Cricket Board would not countenance any political interference in the administration of local cricket. Matches were pulled in the past from Guyana over this very issue.

It was therefore no surprise that the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) has acted in the way it did following the passage of the Cricket Administration Bill. The WICB has been merely consistent.

The West Indies Cricket Board’s position all along was that there should be no political interference in the administration of cricket. The WICB and the International Cricket Council (ICC) recognize the right of private sporting associations to control their own affairs and be free of government meddling.

The government has tried to argue that the Cricket Administration Bill does not hand over the administration of cricket to the government. But that is not the point of contention. The issue is the freedom of private associations to control their own affairs.

The government cannot dissolve a private association that is concerned with the administration of cricket. This is what the legislation seeks to do. It seeks to dissolve the Guyana Cricket Board without its consent and create a new entity. It matters not whether this new entity is free of government’s control.

The Guyana Cricket Board is a private association. The court has ruled that it had legal standing. But even if did not, like most political parties in Guyana, the government cannot simply dissolve private bodies as they please.

The Guyana Cricket Board is recognized by the West Indies Cricket Board. It is in fact a constituent member of the West Indies Cricket Board and therefore to dissolve the Guyana Cricket Board has ramifications for the West Indies Cricket Board.

The WICB had made it clear ever since the government foisted an IMC on local cricket that it would not recognize any body imposed on the administration of local cricket.
The Cricket Administration Bill also seizes the property of the existing Guyana Cricket Board. Under our constitution if this happens then compensation at market value has to be paid. Seizure of property without compensation amounts to nationalization.

The government now finds itself in the invidious position of having to defend these actions at the same time that it is claiming that the former President of Guyana would have had legitimate expectations to certain benefits and therefore to reduce those benefits, which the opposition parties have done through the passage of a Bill, would be unlawful and require the payment of compensation which is tantamount to restoring the benefits reduced.

The President has refused, and rightly so, to assent to the Bill passed by the opposition parties reducing the benefits due to former Presidents. The refusal to assent is based on the principles enunciated above, that is, that any such reduction would amount to a denial of property and unless compensation is offered would be unconstitutional.

It is respectfully argued that the same applies to the Cricket Administration Bill. Not only does it dissolve the Guyana Cricket Board without its consent, but it also seizes the property of the Guyana Cricket Board and hands it to another entity without offering the affected party compensation in accordance with the Constitution of Guyana.

The Cricket Administration Bill was passed with the support of one of the parliamentary opposition parties, APNU. The government did a number on APNU by dangling a carrot in front of APNU. The opposition grouping bit the bait. The carrot was the granting of association status, under the new Bill, to Region Ten. APNU got all excited and seemed to have forgotten that it is not the duty of parliament to create associations within private sporting bodies such as the Guyana Cricket Board. That is a responsibility for the membership of the Guyana Cricket Board.

It is the members of the Guyana Cricket Board who have the right to decide whether they will accept a new association. It is not for the legislature to determine that Region Ten must be an association in any new cricket board.

Suppose another Region in Guyana decides now that it too wants associate status in the Guyana Cricket Board. What happens? Will APNU now demand that the government create a new association?

This is what is meant by meddling in the affairs of private entities.
It is for this reason that the West Indies Cricket Board has decided, as it did in the past, to act. And it has acted by withdrawing the Third Test match from Guyana in the forthcoming cricket series between New Zealand and the West Indies.
The government has to assume responsibility for the loss of the Third Test Match between Guyana and New Zealand. And APNU has to explain how it allowed itself to be goaded into supporting this travesty.