Dear Editor,
WHILE two previous letters in relation to the latter of the above caption went unpublished, I do hope this time around I’ll be granted the privilege in having this letter publicised towards offering my views publicly on the two subject matters.

First and foremost is the suspension of the GFF committee member, Keith O’Jeer. Whatever the issue was/ is, did the individual appear before the Federation’s disciplinary committee with prior written notification with the relevant constitutional articulation applicable? If not, was an emergency executive committee meeting convened towards enforcing the suspension? Was the General Council apprised subsequently?

My reason for seeking the relevant answers is primarily due to the fact that in all instances, constitutional articulation (s) and parliamentary procedures have to be adhered to, along with the relevant paper trail, while due process and natural justice must be given utmost priority.

Editor, strange as it may seem, in January 2018, a letter captioned “Is the Berbice FA, AGM legitimate? For reasons unknown, it went unpublished. My primary point of contention was and remains unchanged. How can the GFF, and by extension the General Council allow O’Jeer to retain the presidency of the BFA, yet still be serving as a Federation committee member? Apart from being a conflict of interest, this dangerous precedent can have serious repercussions; that with the elections of Christopher Mathias and Wayne Forde as presidents of the GFF, respectively.

Both individuals had relinquished the respective positions from the GFA and Fruta Conquerors. So, why didn’t O’Jeer take the same route? Why was a technical development officer tasked with the responsibility of returning officer and not an individual with the relevant administrative qualities? While power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, it’s a sad day for O’Jeer who, under Matthias’ presidency, had contested every other position with the exception of the president.

Secondly, and more importantly, is the issue of the Commission of Inquiry into the allegation of sexual harassment by a senior functionary of the Referee’s Association against female referees. With the five-member panel comprising an all-female ensemble, surely, within this context I have my reservation that at least one male member should have been on board. As a consequence, why wasn’t the alleged perpetrator suspended in the interim, due to the seriousness of [the] allegation?

Is the Commission of Inquiry (CoI), within its terms of reference, investigating other factors of sexual harassment? Editor, a failure to acknowledge the hidden scenario can have dire consequences in the long term. For this reason it should be placed on the ‘front burner’.

Finally, while it is better late than never, would there be a draft document for circulation to affiliates, with the relevant recommendations for adoption at the CoI’s conclusion? Should the alleged prime suspect be found guilty, based on circumstantial and supporting evidence, will the matter be turned over to the law enforcement agency? If the individual is vindicated, would the federation take private action?

Regards
Lester Sealey