High Court upholds appointment of Cricket Ombudsman

High Court Judge Franklin Holder last Friday upheld the appointment of Attorney-at-Law Kamal Ramkarran as Cricket Ombudsman. His ruling was premised on an application filed by Secretary of the Guyana Cricket Board (GCB) Anand Sanasie, President of the Essequibo Cricket Board Fizul Bacchus (now deceased), and Chairman of the Enmore Community Centre Cricket Club Bheemraj Ramkelewan against Ramkarran’s appointment which was made by public notice on February 19, 2021, by Minister of Culture, Youth and Sport Charles Ramson.
That day, too, Minister Ramson also designated February 26, 2021, as the date for the GCB elections. But those elections failed to take place on that day and Ramson on March 19, 2021, declared by a notice that the elections will be held on March 29, 2021.
Prior to the elections, Sanasie, Bacchus, and Ramkelewan filed a Fixed Date Application (FDA) seeking an injunction to prevent Ramkarran from holding/conducting the GCB elections. However, the reliefs sought by them were refused by the High Court. The GCB elections eventually took place and a newly elected GCB was formed. But on June 29, 2021, the trio filed an amended FDA asking the High Court to nullify Minister Ramson’s decision fixing dates for GCB elections on the basis that it was null, void, illegal, invalid, unreasonable, irrational, and of no legal effect. They also sought, among other things, an order of certiorari nullifying, cancelling, and/or quashing the purported appointment of Ramkarran, another order invalidating the GCB elections, and a further order setting aside the result of the elections.
They further asked the court to declare that there must be a verification of a register of clubs prior to the holding of the GCB elections in keeping with the provisions of the Guyana Cricket Administration Act. The trio also sought a declaration that the Minister failed to engage in meaningful consultation with the Board of Cricket West Indies before making his decisions
Justice Holder found that there were two main issues to be dealt with. These included whether the appointment of Ramkarran as the Cricket Ombudsman was lawful and in keeping with the provisions of the Act and whether Ramkarran complied with the provisions of the Act prior to the holding of the GCB elections. In relation to the first issue, the Judge found the reasoning of former Chief Justice Ian Chang on the issue of “meaningful consultation” in Essequibo Cricket Board 2015- HC- CIV-DEM- CM- 2 to be instrumental in the instant case.
In that case, Justice Chang held that “meaningful consultation” was not an absolute procedural requirement. It was a provisional or conditional procedural requirement, breach of that procedural requirement could not and did not render the act of appointment invalid”. Considering this, Justice Holder held that Ramkarran’s appointment was lawful.
As it relates to the second issue, Justice Holder held that the Act does not define what is a register of clubs nor does it speak to the Cricket Ombudsman establishing such a register.
He held that it is unreasonable for the Cricket Ombudsman to create the register of clubs and then verify same. He also found that by Section 9 of the Act it was the County Boards that shall keep a register of clubs within their respective county. He said that it was for the Cricket Ombudsman to verify the register of clubs and determine the method he uses to verify same as the verification process is not prescribed in the Act. In determining the verification method used by Ramkarran, he found that the Essequibo Cricket Board was non-compliant and therefore they cannot use their reluctance to comply, to stymie the holding of the elections.
Justice Holder, therefore, found that Ramkarran did his best and complied with the Act prior to holding the GCB elections. For these reasons, the High Court Judge dismissed the FDA with costs to be paid to the Attorney General, Ramkarran and the GCB in the sum of $350,000 each. (G1)