[ad_1]
- The Council of Members of Cricket South Africa refuses to relinquish control of cricket.
- The Council of Members will not recognize the interim board convened by Sports Minister Nathi Mthethwa.
- The presence of former CEO Haroon Lorgat on the interim board was a topic for the Council of Members.
The optimism that had accompanied Cricket South Africa (CSA) For the past few weeks, since an interim board was announced late last month, it has taken a massive hit.
READ | The CSA Interim Board is determined to continue
The administration of the organization, once again, has entered into crisis.
On Thursday, the CSA Council of Members, through the CSA Acting President Rihan richards, declined to recognize the interim board, which had been created by sports minister Nathi Mthethwa late last month.
The interim board, Richards says, would not be accepted as the driving issue in South African cricket.
With the entire previous board resigning under that government pressure, the interim board, chaired by Judge Zak Yacoob, was Mthethwa’s attempt to remedy the leadership crisis that has long plagued CSA.
There was, briefly, the feeling that cricket was back in capable hands, but this latest development has once again raised red flags just days after England hit the country for a limited series of overs against the Proteas.
READ | CSA Member Council ax Interim Board
Mthethwa’s office has yet to respond to the decision of the Council of Members, of which five are members of the previous board that resigned, but the reaction from the government is expected to be unsatisfactory.
The presence of former CSA CEO Haroon Lorgat on the interim board, Richards confirmed, was a significant factor in the decision.
Lorgat left CSA in 2017 after a break with the board over his dealings with everything related to the T20 Global League.
Richards emphasized, however, that Lorgat was far from the sole reason for the Council of Members’ decision.
The interim board was criticized for taking the reins of cricket into its own hands, through key decisions and in its commitments to the media, without properly consulting the Council of Members, which according to Richards was always destined to remain the body in charge. cricket.
“It’s more about how our concerns are addressed, as well as the attitude shown when we raise our concerns,” Richards said at a news conference Thursday afternoon.
“I think we did it professionally and appropriately. We also raised potential conflicts of interest related to other people on the interim committee and also clearly indicated why we thought those people would have a great influence (on matters).”
Richards declined to release details of concerns about Lorgat’s place on the interim board.
According to the interim board, concerns about Lorgat’s involvement had already been clarified in a meeting with the Membership Council and Mthethwa on Sunday, but Richards said that was not the case and that the Membership Council’s concerns had not been resolved. .
“It is the stance (of the interim board) that almost became prescriptive and almost a demand that we name everyone as a collective and not really address our concerns. That was the main reason for the collapse of the relationship,” he said.
At present, it leaves cricket in South Africa without a clear direction. Mthethwa and the government have used their power to appoint an interim board that, on Thursday, maintained its commitment to the work entrusted, while the Council of Members insists that the board has no authority.
“These people have never been appointed in terms of the Companies Law or the Ministry of the Interior, so, in our opinion, they do not have any position in the CSA. As for the roles they will continue to play (given the statement in the who are fighting) “I would just be speculating. We have not confirmed their appointments as directors, “Richards said.
“The company is working. The council of members is there, but there is also a small board to ensure that everything works efficiently.”
It’s a disconnect that is further damaging an already battered and bruised image of the CSA, but Richards insisted that the Membership Council still had the best interests of the game at heart and that it was not about individuals.
“This is in no way a U-turn, but rather a way to ensure that the process remains credible,” he said.
“We will come out very soon, once we have engaged with all relevant stakeholders, with a plan for how (cricket) issues will be addressed in the future.”
The minister’s response will be key to what happens next.
“Our position is very clear that we are not in conflict with the minister. There is a misalignment between the roles and responsibilities and the authority of the proposed interim board,” Richards said.
“Naturally, we are aware of the rights granted to the minister in terms of the Sports Law. But it is also important to point out what our responsibility is to the general cricket public, as well as the requirements of the ICC.”
The ICC constitution makes it very clear that government intervention in the functioning of one of its member councils could result in the suspension of international cricket.
That is surely the most urgent concern right now and it is a risk that has been amplified by a possible confrontation with the government.
The process of appointing the interim board was also something the Council of Members was involved in and which, too, has raised questions about its objections to staff 13 days after its announcement.
In partnership with the government, Sascoc and the South African Cricketers Association (SACA), the Membership Council was tasked with nominating three names to the nine-member interim board.
“The only names we knew were our three candidates. The other names were never published before us,” Richards said.
“That I want to make very clear. At no point before the announcement were we informed of those names during the process.
“There was a process that we were able to follow to raise our concerns because that is standard practice and that was a comfort to us at the time.”
Richards said that since the announcement of the interim board, the Council of Members had sought legal advice before acting, which helped explain why it was two weeks before the problems of Lorgat’s position emerged.
“If I had objected to the list of candidates, I would have given my personal opinion, but that would have been unfortunate because I would not be sure if my affiliates had the same reservations,” he said.
When asked about the Membership Council’s ability to amend the current situation given its recent track record in the governance of South African cricket, Richards acknowledged that he would have no problem resigning if necessary.
“This is not about the Council of Members. The opinions of all members and stakeholders were sought to ensure that cricket moves forward. It was not just the 12-14 council members who made this decision. It was a broad consultative process,” he said.
“We as a Council of Members have reflected, and yes, I personally believe that as one of the longest-serving presidents in local cricket, we must take responsibility and that has happened. In the past, the voice of the Council Membership was never heard, it was almost an attitude of acceptance and that is the difference with this advice.
“We are not going to tolerate, no matter which board delivers, things that we are not happy with. We will address matters directly and professionally. We need to step up and start representing our affiliates and cricket in general.
“I’m sure (leaving office) would be an option if it comes down to that. I would have no problem doing it if necessary. That was the big question they asked me: if there is something against me and I have to go, I will go “.
