WICB should apologise to Portia

THE EDITOR, Sir:

I share the views expressed by Diane Sharpe in your edition of Sunday, February 26, but I disagree with one paragraph of your editorial on Friday the 24th, titled 'Cricket, governance and diplomacy'.

In the former, the current situation begs the question: Would the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) have dared take such a position with a Michael Manley, an Eric Williams, an Errol Barrow, or a Keith Mitchell. No, and why? Because all the aforementioned have one characteristic in common.

In the latter, your editorial bemoans the fact that Portia Simpson Miller has unwittingly removed herself from the role of a "potential arbiter". Here, I beg to differ.

Mrs Simpson Miller must have appreciated that the situation had been brought to such a stage that she could no longer contemplate, or even hope to be, an arbiter in the crisis - she having been placed in the role of what the law describes as an "aggrieved party". She is, therefore, obliged to await a trial of the issue by her peers and that is the capacity in which she shall approach her CARICOM partners and not as a judge herself.

Jamaica must not relent one inch in the pursuit of justice for Christopher Gayle and nothing short of a trial of the issues before the disciplinary machinery which exists at that level will do.

What has taken place so far flies in the face of one of the basic principles of natural justice audi alteram partem - both sides must be heard, and, as the board has already admitted, it has yet to hear from Mr Gayle.

I think the WICB was the party which was ill advised and which led to its unwise and intemperate outburst, and it would be well advised to apologise to our prime minister and do all in its power to close the vast chasm that it has created.

HOWARD HAMILTON, QC

Duke Street, Kingston