THE Guyana Cricket Board is in serious trouble, as a result our Cricket in this country is on the decline.
For several years cricket administrators in this country are at loggerheads as they are struggling for leadership positions in the sub-associations and the Guyana Cricket Board. There are serious divisions in the Georgetown Sub-Association while the East Bank Sub-Association is also experiencing difficulties. Cricket is better played on the cricket field and poorly played in the court.
The Berbice Sub-Association and the Essequibo Sub-Association are two well established sub-associations that can unite and solve the bigger issue of the Guyana Cricket Board. 
While the power struggle continues in the Demerara Board, the other two boards are also undecided and they are not able to offer unity and leadership.  As a result there is hardly any quality development programmes for players, coaches, officials and/or administrators.
Surely, cricket administrators are not recognising their priority. From all indications there are serious personality clashes.  As a result some people are seeking pride to file action in the Court so as to prevent the smooth running and administering of cricket in this country.
Some people are in the habit of running to the Court as soon as they cannot get things their own way. However, the Hon. Justice Ian Chang has ruled that the Guyana Cricket Board (GCB) is not a Board of an association as the appellation falsely suggests but is rather the name of an association.
It is an unincorporated private organisation which is comprised of three members – the Berbice, Demerara and Essequibo Cricket Boards.  Significantly these three Boards or better these three unincorporated associations could as usual use their nine votes each and continue to co-exist.
However, their failure to co-exist as in the past now leads to Court matters all the time.  However the ruling in short; all the parties before the Court are legal nonentities and the Court is not the proper forum or avenue for any relief or redress involving the Guyana Cricket Board or any of its members, the BCB, DCB or the ECB.
The Chief Justice recognises the imperative that cricket as a sport in Guyana has long progressed to the stage where there are not only national cricket teams but also many professional cricketers of international standing whose main or only source of income is derived from selling their professional services under contract.
And in fact there can be no dispute, that cricketers and cricket have often been the source of National pride and joy.
After carefully looking at all the facts available to the Chief Justice and in light of all his objections, he said the legislature may see it necessary to intervene in order to provide a framework for establishment of committees and sub-committees at least at the national and regional levels – to assume the functions of the unincorporated umbrella associations and for the appointment and/or election of persons to these committees and sub-committees.
The actions of these committees and sub-committees as statutory bodies will be available to the jurisdiction of the Courts.
Significantly the eminent judge further stated:
“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 responsible for the welfare, promotion and proper administration of sports in Guyana – and the premier sport in Guyana is cricket.
The laissez-faire system in sports must therefore not be allowed to operate unchecked and unsupervised and the executive government has the responsibility of ensuring that the operation of such a system does not threaten the public welfare in the area of a national sport.
It does appear that the operation of the laissez-faire system in the area of the sport of cricket has reached the stage where the bitter rivalry between or among private unincorporated umbrella bodies now threatens the welfare of cricket as a National Sport –exposing an obvious disadvantage of the laissez-faire system.
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 Sport to impose his executive will in the national interest until such time as Parliament can provide a more permanent welfare structure.
The Minister can take immediate interim remedial action while the legislature seeks to provide a more permanent solution. Of course, it is not the function of the Court to make decisions of policy. However, the Court is not powerless to state in which branches of state the remedial power lies and the need for the exercise of such power.
What has been stated above may well be relevant and applicable to other major or national sports such as football.