FORMER West Indies players Daren Ganga and Dinanath Ramnarine, along with a group of other cricket administrators, have been ordered by the High Court to pay over $1 million ($1,094,723.99) to the TT Cricket Board.
The team of administrators has been battling the Azim Bassarath-led TTCB for many years, questioning the running of the organisation, including the local board’s constitution. The other claimants in the matter are former West Indies spinner Samuel Badree and cricket officials Anil Kamal, Clint Pamphile and Camal Basdeo (now deceased).
One of the issues the claimants had was the election of executive officers which was scheduled to take place on October 16, 2016.
The judgment, delivered by judge Jacqueline Wilson, said, “The claimants argue that the impugned provisions promote an inherently unfair electoral process and give incumbent officers and persons nominated by them a material advantage over other persons who are contesting the elections.”
Wilson’s judgment said the TTCB “argues that the unfair advantage alleged by the claimants is based on assumptions that are fundamentally flawed and, in any event, contrary to the claimants’ evidence.”
The cricket administrators are questioning the fairness of the election because the incumbent officers start with 12 votes from outgoing members and nominated members before the elections begin.
“The claimants allege that under the impugned provisions incumbent officers unfairly commence the electoral process with a block of 12 votes in their favour out of a potential 49. They argue that the system operates in a way that enables the executive to prevail at successive elections and to unfairly exclude new candidates from being elected.”
The TTCB “submits that there are no grounds to justify the court’s intervention in these proceedings. TTCB argues that the act does not specify the method for election of executive officers but gives the TTCB a wide berth to conduct its proceedings and discharge its duties as it sees fit, provided that its actions are not inimical to the welfare of cricket.”
The judgment said “an examination of the claimants’ argument demonstrates that it finds very little support in fact or law.”
After listing examples why the TTCB is not being unfair, the judgment said, “The claimants’ application for judicial review is hereby dismissed.”