EDITORIAL - WICB surrenders moral high ground in Gayle case

This newspaper is not enamoured with either the attitude or behaviour of the Jamaican opening batsman and former captain of the West Indies cricket team, Mr Chris Gayle. He is quite a good player. Better than most of those who now play for the West Indies.

That, though, is not the point at issue.

Our immediate concern is the relationship between Mr Gayle and his former employers, the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB), and the issue of natural justice.

Several months following the Cricket World Cup in India and Sri Lanka, in which the West Indies did not do well, Mr Gayle returned to Jamaica and, in at least one radio interview, was very critical of the management system of the WICB as well as the team coach, Mr Ottis Gibson. The WICB was, understandably, offended, and demanded an apology.

In the many months since the 'offence', Mr Gayle and the WICB have been in a to-and-fro over the issue, without a resolution of the case. The latest development was last week's reiteration by the WICB, after a directors' meeting in St Lucia, of its demand for an apology from Mr Gayle.

"... The board requires that Gayle withdraw his comments in order to be considered for selection to the West Indies team," the WICB said in its statement.

Justification needed

The board, in the circumstance, needs to justify why it ought not to be accused of operating in bad faith and, as Mr Pat Rousseau, a former president, claimed in July, of denying Gayle natural justice.

Mr Rousseau's point of departure was the role of the WICB's CEO, Dr Ernest Hilaire, in the affair, seemingly as prosecutor and judge in his own cause, in that, as the board's chief executive, he proffered the charges against Mr Gayle while being the person who was negotiating the expected terms of the apology.

Mr Gayle has failed to comply and has been accused by the WICB of being less than candid in his public remarks on the issue. The veracity of whatever it is that Mr Gayle has been accused of has not been independently tested. We, in the event, are persuaded that the board is in breach of its own rules.

Ignoring dispute resolution machinery

It appears that Mr Gayle is being accused of offending a section of the WICB's code of ethics that insists that players and officials at all times conduct themselves in an honest and sportsman-like manner, and precludes "public or media comment which is detrimental to the interest of cricket".

Where this is presumed to have happened, the code of conduct is to be "enforced in accordance with the procedures laid down in the rules", which include bringing the alleged offender before a disciplinary committee. When this happens, the specifics of the allegations are to be laid out and the accused has the right to file a rebuttal. This is the concept of fair play and natural justice, which is the bedrock of the democratic enterprise.

This is not the process that has been employed with Chris Gayle. Rather, the board appears to be acting on fiat, in retreat from the moral high ground. The shame of it all is that for once the WICB might have actually won against a player in a quasi-judicial setting.