GOOD NEWS; GREAT NEWS!

Jan 20, 2012 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

 

 

It is the best news yet in the country. Not only has the government been consistent in embracing parliamentary conventions, but even more impressive, it has announced that it behooves the government to adhere to recommendations of the courts.
Now the courts can make either decision, recommendations or express opinions. The latter two are non-binding; that is, parties to an action are not bound to follow an opinion or a recommendation expressed by a court but the decisions of the courts are binding on all parties.
Very often we hear magistrates, for example, express opinions about the treatment of prisoners. Very often they give their opinions of certain things and also express opinions. We however never saw the government racing to improve those areas, including the state of the lockups or the treatment of persons accused of crimes.
It is however wonderful to learn that the government is now implying that the executive is duty bound to adhere to recommendations of the courts.
Now if the executive is going to adhere to recommendations of the courts, it means that when it comes to decisions or judgments of the courts they would definitely be complying with these decisions. After all, if the government feels obligated to comply with recommendations of the courts, which are supposed to be non- binding it would most definitely feel a greater obligation to comply with an aspect that is binding.
As such we should not expect the government to any longer appeal decisions of the court since they would be appealing judgments, which while subject to appeal, are binding. And the government says that the executive will heed the recommendations of the courts.
The fact of the matter is that recommendations and opinions are non-binding and it is up to the government to decide whether to follow that recommendation and to also decide a lawful and proper manner to achieve the objectives of the recommendations if the government so chooses to follow the recommendations.
The Chief Justice of Guyana ruled that the Guyana Cricket Board has no legal personality to the government. As such, he could not determine any action that was before him either brought by or against the Guyana Cricket Board. He then expressed an opinion, which we are told amounts to something like this:
“It is a matter of common knowledge (a fact of notoriety) that there exists a Ministry responsible for sports in general. This indicates that the State has assumed executive responsibility for the welfare, promotion and proper administration of sports in Guyana – and the premier sport in Guyana is that of cricket…. Since the judiciary as an arm of the State is powerless to provide remedial action, the remedy must, of course, lie either in the exercise of the power of the legislature and/or the executive.
In the present state of affairs, while a legislative structure for the administration of cricket is desirable, there may be the immediate need for the Minister responsible for sports to impose his executive will in the national interest until such time as Parliament can provide a more permanent welfare structure.”
This is an opinion and an opinion is not binding. But even if the government felt an obligation to act in accordance with this opinion, this does not give it a license to act in any way as it pleases, including the illegal and unlawful padlocking of private property. To do so and to suggest that this is being done in accordance with executing the recommendations of the court, is to implicate them in an illegal act.
The executive at all times has to act in accordance with the law and within its sphere. In the same way that the executive should not encroach on the legitimate space of the judiciary, in the same way the executive cannot trample on private or voluntary organizations.
It must respect the autonomy of voluntary organizations. There were options that were available to government that could have avoided it taking this misguided step of establishing an IMC and attempting to hijack the administration of cricket in Guyana.
The implications for all sporting organizations in Guyana are now ominous. Since most of the sporting organizations in Guyana, in fact most of civil society organizations and almost all of the political parties are unincorporated, then it means that the government can equally impose its executive will on all of these organizations under the pretext that there is mismanagement.
The fact is that unlike what the government is attempting to project, there is no mismanagement of cricket in Guyana or is cricket in decline. Guyana continues to hold its own and a few years ago went to the Champions League.
A number of Guyanese cricketers continue to make the West Indies squad. In fact three Guyanese are members of the West Indies team at the moment, far more than in the past except for the glory days of the sixties and seventies when Guyana normally had four players in the team.
No evidence has also been presented to demonstrate any financial impropriety on the part of the GCB.
The problem with the GCB is that there is a division within the Demerara Board and the government is meddling in the affairs of this dispute and taking sides. This is the gravamen of the issue.
But more about that later, and more about the obvious conflict of interest, in which some members of the government find themselves, in dealing with this matter.

---

---