Attorney Shemar Britton files legal Objection to GCF’s Extraordinary General Meeting

Nov 29, 2025 Sports

---

…accuses Federation of Constitutional breaches and voter suppression

By Rawle Toney

Kaieteur Sports – Attorney-at-Law Shemar Britton has ignited a major legal and administrative showdown within Guyana’s cycling fraternity, issuing a formal and uncompromising objection to the Guyana Cycling Federation’s (GCF) Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) scheduled for November 29.

The objection, submitted on behalf of Carlton Wheelers Cycling Club, Kaieteur Attack Racing Cycling Club, Flying Ace Cycling Club, and KFC Evolution Cycling Club, directly accuses the GCF’s leadership of violating multiple provisions of its own Constitution, unlawfully excluding members from the electoral process, and acting beyond its authority.

The letter, addressed to GCF President Horace Burrowes and the Federation’s full Council, is one of the most consequential legal interventions in Guyanese cycling in recent years.

It challenges not only the validity of the upcoming EGM but the very manner in which the Federation has been operating with respect to constitutional compliance, member participation, and governance.

The central issue raised by Britton, Guyana’s current National Table Tennis Champion, is the invalidity of the EGM notice dated November 23, 2025, which grants only six days’ notice for a meeting scheduled for November 29.

According to Article VIII(5)(a) of the GCF Constitution, member clubs must be given at least seven days’ written notice, except in cases of emergency, an exception that, according to Britton, the Federation failed to justify.

Britton argues that the violation is not minor or technical, but serious and material, rendering the meeting constitutionally unsound.

Britton notes that “no emergency is stated or implied” in the GCF’s notice, which means the standard constitutional timeframe applies. Because the Federation failed to comply with this requirement, “any business transacted at that meeting is liable to be declared null and void,” he writes.

Beyond the issue of defective notice, Britton’s letter takes aim at the Federation’s attempt to exclude various members from participating in elections, including former executive members connected to the Interim Management Committee (IMC).

The GCF’s meeting notice reportedly stated that “members previously involved with the IMC are ineligible to participate.” Britton argues that this instruction violates the Constitution outright.

According to the letter, there is no constitutional provision that authorizes the Federation to deem any category of member or club ineligible based on past involvement with any committee.

It states that any sanctions must be imposed only through the Disciplinary Committee, as outlined in Article XI(6), and only after due process.

No member can be excluded without a written complaint, notice of charges, an opportunity to be heard and a formal determination by the Council.

The attorney stressed that the GCF has not followed any of these mandatory steps. As a result, the attempt to exclude members is not only unconstitutional, but also “unlawful and void.”

The letter also rebukes attempts, explicit or implied, to block certain individuals, including former executives such as Robin Persaud, Mark St. Claire, and Dave Ramnarine, from contesting the upcoming elections.

Britton reiterates that the Constitution contains no provision disqualifying former, suspended, or removed executives from seeking office unless they have been formally sanctioned through the prescribed disciplinary process.

Since no such sanctions exist, any attempt to bar these individuals is “unconstitutional and amounts to an abuse of authority.”

Britton further argues that certain actions by the GCF leadership, particularly unilateral decisions relating to membership eligibility and meeting convening, represent ultra vires conduct, meaning actions taken beyond their legal authority.

The GCF Constitution vests governing authority exclusively in the Council, not in any individual officer. Therefore, according to Britton, no president, secretary, or small group of executives can unilaterally impose restrictions or convene a meeting contrary to constitutional requirements.

In the letter to the GCF’s president, the clubs demanded an immediate withdrawal of the defective EGM notice, issuance of a new notice compliant with Article VIII and written confirmation that no member or club will be excluded from participating or contesting elections, except through due-process disciplinary procedures.

Additionally, the letter issues a firm warning, that “Any attempt to proceed with the impugned meeting or to conduct elections under unconstitutional conditions will be challenged formally and publicly, and all resolutions passed thereunder will be treated as constitutionally invalid.”

Britton’s intervention underscores deepening tensions within the cycling community, where disputes over legitimacy, governance, and internal democracy have persisted for years.

As the GCF navigates the objection from the clubs, it now faces a critical decision to either uphold constitutional integrity and correct procedural breaches, or risk plunging the sport into deeper controversy and legal dispute.

---

• Constitutional breaches, GCF, General Meeting, legal Objection, Shemar Britton, voter suppression

---