WHEN DISPUTES arise within Cricket West Indies (CWI), who’s in charge of resolving them, the courts or arbitrators?
This issue has, lamentably, arisen given a recent decision by the Guyana High Court on the validity of last year’s election of a CWI vice president and the positions adopted by CWI in the wake of that ruling, including its announcement on August 19 that Azim Bassarath had yielded the post and a new election will be held in coming weeks.
On August 5, Justice Navindra Singh ruled the nomination of Mr Bassarath for the office of CWI vice president was “null, void, of no legal effect and contrary to the articles of association of CWI.”
This came after the Guyana Cricket Board (GCB) had challenged his election. Initially, the GCB had put forward Mr Bassarath for the post in January 2023, but on the day of voting in March 2023, the board withdrew the nomination in writing.
Nonetheless, the CWI proceeded with the process and Mr Bassarath was narrowly installed, gaining six votes, with two voting against, and four abstentions.
In response to all of this, the CWI has adopted several stances.
Last October, in reply to a letter of complaint from the GCB, it said the electoral process was “fair and transparent” and “in accordance with the memorandum and articles of association of the organisation.”
And yet the body reportedly did not file any defence in the Guyana court proceedings, even though it retained an attorney who appeared in the case.
Instead, it argued – in an application which the judge ruled as being too late – that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. In an immediate response to the eventual ruling, CWI, led by president Dr Kishore Shallow, confirmed it would appeal.
“This situation presents an invaluable opportunity to strengthen the CWI memorandum and articles of association,” Dr Shallow said.
That “strengthening” currently looks, however, more like confusion.
The CWI’s decision to re-hold elections would appear to acknowledge the initial process was somehow flawed and that there is need to repeat it, even as it has insisted the opposite is true and distanced itself from the Guyana court’s jurisdiction while pursuing appeal.
The court has already found arbitration unmerited, given its view that no dispute as to interpretation of CWI articles arises.
Convening an extraordinary general meeting for the purpose of a fresh election pending court proceedings will not necessarily draw a line under this conflict, given the risk of more unresolved complaints being raised down the road by all the parties concerned.
Until the issue of how disputes of this nature are to be umpired is settled, the door has been opened to all manner of chaos. The regional game will suffer.
The post Who’s CWI’s umpire? appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.
