Ex-TTCB treasurer Kiswah Chaitoo appeals his removal as treasurer

THE OUSTED Kiswah Chaitoo has appealed his removal as treasurer of the Trinidad and Tobago Cricket Board (TTCB).

On March 4, Chaitoo’s attorneys Dinesh Rambally and Stefan Ramkissoon sent a 14-page notice of appeal to the TTCB’s Supreme Appellant Committee, challenging the February 28 process when board members met to move a motion of no confidence against Chaitoo.

In December, Chaitoo revealed that approximately $500,000 was allegedly misused over five years. An employee has resigned since the revelation.

For Chaitoo to be removed, two-thirds needed to be in favour of it. At the end of the voting process, 35 wanted him to leave and 12 were against.

Chaitoo, an experienced forensic accountant, said he wanted to protect his name and reported the matter to the Fraud Squad.

March 4’s notice of appeal maintained he was committed to the highest levels of transparency and accountability.

His attorneys are contending the special general meeting to move the vote of no confidence was illegal and the board should have refrained from proceeding with the vote.

Chaitoo was accused of procuring TTCB documents and keeping them in his possession without authorisation, going to the police without the approval of the executive, making untrue statements to the media at an AGM and refusing to meet the executive to discuss its concerns.

However, in the appeal notice, Chaitoo’s lawyers contend the motion for the vote of no confidence was “misconceived, baseless, (and) constitutes an abuse” by the movers.

The appeal accused the TTCB of failing to hold disciplinary proceedings instead of taking the more “radical” route of a vote of no confidence.

“The goal was simply, to get rid of the treasurer.”

The attorneys contended the motion was premature and invalid, and accused the TTCB of leapfrogging the provisions of its constitution and abusing its processes.

“The proposers/TTCB has been extremely disingenuous in crafting the motion of no confidence.”

They further contended that the claim by the TTCB that Chaitoo’s actions “caused reputational damage to the board” and a loss of sponsorship” was fact-driven and the treasurerwas given no opportunity to defend himself.

“The proposers/TTCB cannot sit as prosecutor, judge and jury in its own case. This is contrary to the rules of natural justice.”

They reminded Chaitoo was a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, so he was bound by the code of ethics of that profession to comply with the law.

Referring to “questionable” blank-cheque payments, and giving brief details, the attorneys said the TTCB could not, under its confidentiality clause, be entitled to make the treasurer a “confidant of a crime or a fraud,” so he was entitled to go to the police.

“He was selective in his disclosure…to the police.”

It was for this reason that the letter said the motion was not genuine and was designed “to obfuscate and cover up the details of gross negligence or wilful misconduct or a crime which with due diligence...could have been prevented.”

It further said the TTCB could not “sit as prosecutor, judge and jury in an obvious trumped up no-confidence motion. The board is not a law unto itself as it purports to be by the invalid no-confidence motion.”

And while the TTCB Act gave the board the power to regulate its procedures, the attorneys said this did not include a “carte-blanche power” to flout its own rules.

“Members of the board/TTCB/the passing of the motion of no confidence failed to appreciate that Mr Chaitoo, as treasurer, attempted to treat with pertinent issues relating to financial mismanagement/irregularities and/or fraud internally before any matters arose in the public domain.”

After Chaitoo made the report to the police, the TTCB executive held a meeting on January 10, when a motion of no confidence was moved, with nine of the 11 members voting for the motion, one against and the other abstained.

This was followed by the meeting on the night of February 28. Hours before the vote, three zones – Central, North and South West – urged the executive to reconsider and/or suspend the special general meeting until an independent investigation had been done, threatening to seek an injunction to stop the meeting.

Chaitoo also wrote to the board with his response to the vote, setting out details of alleged impropriety, and asking to be represented by his attorneys at the meeting.

The TTCB executive rejected this.

In his written defence ahead of that meeting, Chaitoo said, “I had no alternative but to seek the assistance of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service when these alleged fraudulent transactions were discovered…By doing so, certain individuals are now calling to have me removed for whatever reason. One can only surmise that it is an attempt to cover up wrongdoings, “Why else would you disapprove of an investigation into obvious and blatant breaches?”