GFF statutes review a power grab pretending to reform - Figueira
Jermaine Figueira, Shadow Minister of Culture, Youth and Sport, has lambasted the Guyana Football Federation (GFF)’s Statutes Review Process, labelling the recently concluded procedure as nothing more than a power grab under the pretence of reform.
He made the argument during an exclusive interview with Stabroek Sport yesterday. According to Figueira, who is a former executive member of the Upper Demerara Football Association, the draft constitution which was submitted to the members by the GFF following the conclusion of the review process, is tailored to neuter the congress.
The transcript of the interview follows:
SS: What are your thoughts on the draft constitution which was submitted to the GFF Membership for analysis ahead of possible ratification at the August 27th Extraordinary Congress?
JF: “The Guyana Football Federation (GFF) will be hosting its congress less than a week from today The question to be asked is, how has the sport developed in seven years, the associations, players, coaches, stakeholders, etc.? Why do the authors of the proposed amendments to the GFF constitution, seek to maintain the status quo of the executives, reduce the participation of its members, and limit the powers of the congress? It is important for member associations, players, and all stakeholders to make a deliberate effort, now that the GFF has sent its proposed changes to its Constitution to the Members of Congress, to read, in order to make the best decisions in the interest of the game.
“With even a cursory look at several proposals being put, it is clear as day that the intended aim of the exercise is solely to consolidate power, power for nonimpactful administrators. It is imperative to note, that the proposed changes to the Constitution were sent to members, but they were ‘not highlighted’, so the Membership and interested stakeholders could not easily identify the ‘specific proposed amendments. This act was deliberate, intentional, and a well-calculated maneuver to hoodwink, bamboozle, and disempower the people who are expected to vote at Congress. The authors, who engaged in this level of gamesmanship were not smart but wicked. They know fully well that 95 percent of the Congress delegates understand little about the constitution because most of them don’t take the time to read it.”
“Correspondingly, there was a deliberate effort by the GFF in its proposals to reduce, as far as possible, the rights of Members of the GFF Congress. All of the amendments proposed will affect the authority of Congress and or obligations of Members. Those amendments were tailored to reduce the constitutional rights presently enjoyed by Members. It is against this evidence that … Buxton United Football Club (spoke out), whose activism on this very serious matter captured the attention of many and should be especially congratulated. The club’s stance was vindicated on every issue that it had raised regarding the GFF Constitutional review process several weeks ago. This might be a process that is being conducted amongst the FIFA member associations, but how can this be viewed and endorsed by FIFA as impacting governance, transparency, and accountability in any positive shape or form given the amendments that are proposed”
SS:
Are the resulting changes inside the draft constitution indicative of the quality of the Review Committee?
JF: “It was scandalous how those who were entrusted with power can be this deceitful to its own Congress. One is now forced to agree that those chosen to be on the GFF Constitutional Review Committee were there only because of their proximity to the GFF leadership and not because of any special skill. Hence, the by-product of their work was now the testimony of their input and thought process, given the Chairman’s defence of the Committee’s work on 31/7/2022. The question now is whether the Chairman of GFF Constitutional Review Committee was truthful to the country during the 31/7/2022 engagement with the media.
“The GFF told the country on 31/7/2022, that the constitutional revision process was placing emphasis on governance and compliance, among other things. However, what was not said was who would benefit from the governance and compliance amendments and who would lose. The approach engineered by the GFF ensured that the GFF Constitution was now the 12th man in the Executive. This is evident on page 24 of the proposed new constitution, in Article 27 (5), where the new colonial rule to control Congress is found disguised under the Quorum of Congress. It states, `Once it is declared that the Congress has been convened and composed in accordance with these Statutes, the quorum shall not be influenced by delegates departing. Delegates arriving after it has been declared that the Congress has been convened and composed in accordance with these Statutes may join the debates and ‘may’ be entitled to vote.’ May?!
“This was never in any of the Constitutions Collin Klass used, but this is what the present football Gods of 2022 want to use to control members who dare to put up a defence. It was clear that once a member turned up after a Congress had commenced, he/she would be at the mercy of the Chairperson and the Executives on whether he/she could partake in the debate or vote on issues important to them. This proved the deception of the Chairman of the Review Committee when she said that this proposal was not suitable for the Guyanese time management culture on 31/7/2022. The Membership must now reflect on this development, bearing in mind that the Chairman of the Review Committee was speaking for the GFF Executives who appointed and empowered her.”
SS: Will the new constitution, if endorsed, hinder the power of Congress?
JF: “I’m reminded of Professor Xanthaki in his book, Thornton’s Legislative Drafting 5th edition, where he spoke to the use of the term ‘may’ at pg. 116, when he said that (‘May’ should be used where permission, benefit, right, or a privilege is to be given). Those seeking to rubber stamp Congress rendering it useless will now take away a right and privilege that Members have always enjoyed. Professor Xanthaki also pointed out that, ‘When the drafter uses the term ‘may’ they must provide conditions under which the discretion is used.’ The discretion for the use of the powers to administer this proposed rule rests with the people who appointed the Chairman of the Constitutional Review Committee. Why should Members who had volunteered their time in service to football be subjected to this level of abuse because a few people want to consolidate power?” No right-thinking Member should vote in favour of these devious and dangerous proposals.”
What are some of the major changes and amendments that would effectively weaken Congress once ratified?
SS:
JF: “The efforts to weaken Congress and Members’ participation were littered in disguise throughout the proposed new Constitution. Hence, this article would be looking at those that were designed to do the greatest harm to good governance in the game. It was significant that one of the blatant moves by the GFF was to remove the words (supreme and legislative authority) from the original definition for Authority of Congress in Article 24 (1), pg. 21 of its proposal. This maneuver set in motion the real intent of those seeking to consolidate power. In Article 16 (1) pg. 17, in the new constitution, it is proposed that a “suspension approved by the Council shall last until the next Congress unless the Council has lifted it in the meantime. Further, in Article 23 (1), at pg. 20, it is proposed that ‘the Council may also dismiss a member of a body provisionally, with the exception of the members of the independent committees. The provisional dismissal approved by the Council shall be confirmed by the next Congress’.
“Hence, the person provisionally suspended or dismissed was left at the discretion of the Executive to call Congress whenever they chose, while the present rule mandates a time for which a Congress shall be called to settle the issue. This must be viewed in line with the GFF’s proposal on pg. 26, Article 30 – Ordinary Congress in the new constitution, to remove the fixed period of “May” for Congress so that less planning can be done by members who would now be at the whims of the Executives about when a Congress would be held. In every instance, the Members of Congress would be left disadvantaged and worse off by the amendments proposed by the Review Committee and the GFF.”
“Additionally, the GFF proposed that at pg. 26, Article 30 (3) - Ordinary Congress be further amended for Members to give the Executive 30 days’ notice of what they want on the agenda, instead of 21 days. Again, it is the Members who would be negatively affected by these proposed amendments; nothing is getting easier for Members in the new Constitution. Equal to the task of weakening Congress and reducing Members rights, the GFF proposed that Article 26 pg. 23, Areas of Authority of a Congress, be amended by removing `(p) altering the agenda of an ordinary congress.’ This means that whatever the Executive sets as the agenda is what the Congress had to be content with - thus football is now about to enter the dark age. How will these draconian amendments aid good governance and the development of the sport?
“The agenda is static for an Extraordinary Congress. Now the GFF demigods want it to be static for the Ordinary Congress too. There is nothing progressive for the Members in these proposals. Those seeking more power and the perks of being in those positions have decided to walk on the Congress in this disrespectful manner, given that they view it as passive. It is now difficult to think whether the Members of the Review Committee knew what they were doing, but in truth, they did follow orders. What kind of loyalty is this? Further, the GFF proposed amendments in Article 28, pg. 24, Decisions of Congress, which created new suspicions. The proposal reads `If a show of hands does not result in a clear majority in favour of a motion, the vote shall be taken by calling the roll in alphabetical order.’ The question is how difficult would it be to count 22 hands of Members sitting three feet apart? This must be a distraction with a specific aim but few can see through the emperor’s clothes.”
SS: Will the composition of Congress also be affected if the constitution is approved?
JF: “Conversely, another of the GFF’s devious power play was to propose a reduction in the GFF membership to get greater control. Hence, Article 11, pg. 13, was proposed to be amended to remove two members the GFF deemed conveniently inactive months before elections. Please note that this missive commenced by emphasising that the proposals in the new constitution were not tailored to improve Membership. Thus, it was easy to question the likes of the Coaches Association. When in the last four years did this association have an audited account sanctioned by a general meeting or when in the last four years did the association have a development session for its members? Nevertheless, its proximity to the centre of power in the GFF would never allow this association to be judged on par with Futsal and Beach Soccer.
“The GFF, in Article 8 pg. 11 of the proposed new constitution, posited that, `Every person and organisation involved in the game of association football, futsal and beach soccer in the territory of Guyana is obliged to observe the Statutes and regulations of FIFA, of Concacaf, of CFU,’ but the GFF openly disregarded FIFA’s 2019 Regulation 5:2 on status of players. Thus, we must ask what improved governance would this amendment bring when private football organizers see the GFF using one player in more than one club at the same time without a transfer. This evidence contradicted the GFF plea when they said that FIFA proposals should be carried out because the GFF had a history of breaking FIFA’s regulation 5:2 of 2019.
SS: Overall, who stands to benefit the most from the amendments in the draft constitution once approved?
JF: “In retrospect, all the GFF Executive was interested in is fortifying themselves. This was explicit in all the proposed amendments. The Executive proposed that Article 37 (1) Meetings, at pg. 31, be amended so that they may have fewer statutory meetings, reducing it from 12 to 6, annually. By contrast, while the Executive asked for life to be made easier for themselves, they make life harder for the Congress.”
“Notwithstanding, the grave disadvantage that the Members of Congress would face if they unconsciously voted for the majority of the proposed amendments in the new GFF Constitution, they were also asked to help some power drunk people engineer a third term. This was proposed on pg. 30 of the new constitution, Article 36 (4), Composition, to engineer 3rd term for those consumed by power, and it stated that `No person may serve as President for more than three terms of office (whether consecutive or not). All other members (including any vice-president) of the Council may serve for no more than three terms of office (whether consecutive or not).” The same people were there for two consecutive terms (7 years) and now want more time to do what. Maybe it is to send another 12-member girls’ team to represent Guyana with more officials on the bench than players, as was the case a few weeks ago in 2022. Members of Congress, this is what you must face up to on 27th August 2022 when you would be told to vote.
“From the above narration, we can clearly deduce that the GFF and its Committee lied to Guyana on 31/7/2022 when they said that the constitutional reform process was FIFA driven and designed to improve governance and accountability. Rather, it was an exercise customized to take power away from Congress and consolidate in the GFF Executive who will be known as a Council. Congress would have less influence on the game, given the weakening of the rules by the proposals from the Executive.
“Football in Guyana is about to enter a dark day if, on August 27, 2022, the GFF Congress is found sleeping. Time for the members to wake up and disturb these wicked overseers of this beautiful game.”