Latest update September 22nd, 2026 10:30 AM
Cricket Ombudsman acted unfairly in north Essequibo vote
Dear Editor,
It was a sad day for cricket administration in region 2 following North Essequibo Cricket Committee’s Biannual General Meeting that was held on Sunday, January 25th at Hampton Court. From the inception the Cricket Ombudsman showed signs of biasness in favor of the incumbent; acting with contempt and disregard to pertinent questions posed by some delegates. Even days before the election, the hierarchy of the Essequibo Cricket Board interfered through phone calls and text messages to candidates to sway the results in a particular direction.
Notwithstanding, there was silent resistance to such intimidation and even disrespect. Several issues aroused from the inception including the absence of the minutes of the last BGM; the reason being that is was misplaced. In addition, Richmond United Sports Club, a legitimate and bonified member was denied voting rights even though the club played all the competitions under the tenure of the committee, one of which they won, promptly paid their dues while two of their members sat on the very committee that denied their existence!
In fact, the club had a name change two years ago as it was previously referred to Ravens Sports Club and existed for almost three decades. Among the players were Jaimini Singh, Latchmikant Narine, Elroy Stephney, Michael Singh, Mahendranauth Benneth, Dennis Benjamin, Orin and Owen Belfield; all of whom represented Essequibo at the senior inter-county level. It was a stunning rejection by the Ombudsman whose primary role was to verify clubs and in this case the legitimacy of the club in question. He bluntly and vociferously resisted all attempts by members for clarity and a resolution on the matter. I recalled at the last election it was the same Ombudsman who allowed a club (Spartan Challengers) to vote even though the club was not approved by the committee then as a full- fledged member.
The reason given was that the club had paid its affiliation fees and upon advice from the President of the Essequibo Cricket Board, the club should vote. Yet a club that is in sound financial standing and has received millions of dollars from the Government to develop the ground that they manage (New Pavilion, Washroom facilities, Lights, Fencing) could not have voted.
Is this how an Ombudsman operates given how the sport was administered in the past nationally? Was it not for the very reason that legislation was passed to safeguard the sanctity of the game? Perhaps not since the Ombudsman is not legally trained. The second issues stemmed from the denial of the President and Vice President of Devonshire Castle Sports Club to contest; instead the Ombudsman accepted the names of the Secretary and another member as the club’s representatives. What hypocrisy and blatant attempt at denying the fundamental right of persons to exercise their will. It was obvious from a layman’s perspective why such an action was taken. The Ombudsman disclosed that he is only accepting what was given to him by the Secretary and barred any further query from the aggrieved. These two critical issues meant that two clubs were denied their rights. At this point it was clear of the direction in which the meeting was heading, including the attempt by members of the committee to stifle the democratic right of persons to peacefully protest by calling the Police to remove persons from the meeting.
In fact, the meeting took place a private residence and a principal of the property in one instance threatened to evict candidates. Surprisingly the Cricket Hostel which hosted previous elections was not used. Again, the motive was obvious. There was a prolonged break during which matters were not resolved but when the meeting resumed nothing changed. At this point candidates from Devonshire Castle, Walton Hall, Richmond United, Bacchus and Gunners Sports Club (MAJORITY) staged a walkout in protest. The disenfranchised clubs are therefore appealing to the Ministers of Sport to intervene and administer justice; a fundamental right that was denied by the Ombudsman. Whether the BGM was legally constituted and consisted of a quorum remains in doubt.
Yours faithfully,
Elroy Stephney
Candidate
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
Website Hits
Blunt of the day
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
