Judge orders investigation into NGC's audit of TT Cricket Board

THE TT Cricket Board (TTCB) has been ordered to appoint a five-member committee to investigate issues and concerns raised in a National Gas Company (NGC) financial audit, which showed that a portion of its sponsorship to the sporting body was spent without approval.
In a decision delivered at the Hall of Justice, Port of Spain, on Monday, Justice Frank Seepersad ordered the TTCB to appoint the committee within 30 days.

His order was made as former National League representative Dinanath Ramnarine was partially successful in his lawsuit against the TTCB. In the lawsuit he alleged there were material conflicts of interest in the voting process and accused the current executive of misrepresenting financial documents and information required for the public to determine how the TTCB spends public funds.

The former West Indies leg-spinner argued that the January 16, 2019, election – which saw incumbent president Azim Bassarath remaining at the helm and a new executive team being selected – was illegal and improper. Central to Ramnarine’s complaint was that articles of the TTCB’s constitution which permit affiliates and zonal representatives to vote should be removed, and he asked the court to do just that. The judge declined to do so, saying, the court was mindful that the TTCB was vested with the authority to administer its affairs and manage its processes and had the power to develop and amend its constitution and regulatory processes, as it sees fit, pursuant to the provisions of its constitution.

He said the court had to be careful not to usurp the authority vested in the TTCB and was not inclined to adopt a supervisory role.
However, he ruled in favour of Ramnarine’s appeal for an investigation into the NGC audit of its funding to the TTCB for 2014 to 2016.
After appointing the five-member committee, of which Ramnarine should be a member, a report is to be generated within 120 days and 30 days after that copies must be presented to affiliates of the TTCB,zones and the Minister of Sport.

The terms of reference of the committee’s mandate are to be settled by Ramnarine and the TTCB’s attorneys in 15 days.
The NGC signed a MOU with the TTCB for three years in December, 2013 for $13.35 million. In 2016, owing to a reduction by the NGC, the total sponsorship was reduced to $12.46 million.
The audit showed that $25,000 was overpaid in 2014 and funds under-utilised were unilaterally reallocated by the TTCB. They amounted to $1,462,000 in 2014, $724,000 in 2015 and $797,000 in 2016.
Bassarath has categorically denied that funds were spent in a way not in accordance with the MOU.

In his ruling, Seepersad said the court held the view that the TTCB’s conduct “in ignoring and/or refusing and/or neglecting to inquire into matters raised in the NGC audit” was “inconsistent with the duty to act in the best interest and the welfare of cricket.”
“Those charged with the obligation to manage the sport should do so conscientiously always mindful that the game must stand above their personal interests.
“Public policy cannot remain static and must vary with the passage of time to ensure its continued relevance.

“This court is not prepared to disregard the fact that the NGC audit suggests that there may be significant concerns in relation to the manner in which the defendant’s affairs have been addressed,” he said.
He also said, “There certainly must be a duty of a public body to act in a manner to maintain public confidence in its operations or at the least the debunking of allegations of financial irregularity,” adding that corruption has plagued public bodies in TT “for far too long” and has been, and continues to be, cancerous.

He said the NGC audit provided a sufficient basis for the need to investigate issues of possible financial irregularity, adding that no good reason had been given as to why it was not done.
Ramnarine was represented by Vivek Lakhan-Joseph, Kiel Taklalsingh and Rajesh Bududass, while Odai Ramischand, Navindra Ramnanan and Shivanand Ramnanan represented the TTCB.
As it related to the other leg of Ramnarine’s challenge, Seepersad said the court was of the view that Article 12 of the TTCB’s constitution did not outline mandatory requirements which must be satisfied to enable affiliates to participate in elections. He said there was no nexus between Article 12 and the right to vote and the TTCB was not mandated to rigidly apply rules to impose an implied sanction where there was none.

Ramnarine had argued that affiliates, who voted in the January 2019 election, were not compliant with Article 12 and should have lost their affiliate status.
He wanted the court to direct the TTCB to adjust the zonal regulations to remove affiliates, representatives of the primary and secondary schools cricket leagues and the umpire association from the voting membership, saying they can have additional members on the TTCB’s board than they are allowed.
Although he said the failure by the TTCB to explain why affiliates, despite non-compliance with Article 12, were allowed to vote was odd, the local environment and the method by which local and village cricket takes place could not be disregarded.
He said in many instances, the people who run small teams may not have the best education or are versed in accounting and proper record keeping so a flexible approach was needed in relation to the zones.

“Although the constitution lays out a specified and detailed requirement in relation to reporting, it is impractical to expect that all village clubs within zones may meet these heightened levels of reporting,” he said, adding that while the court had the authority to invalidate the electoral process, discretion had to be exercised.

Ramnarine was represented by Vivek Lakhan-Joseph, Kiel Taklalsingh and Rajesh Bududass, while Odai Ramischand, Navindra Ramnanan and Shivanand  Ramnanan represented the TTCB.