CricInfo Home
News Home

NEWS FOCUS
Rsa in Pak
NZ in India
Zim in Aus

Domestic
Other Series

The inquiry into the enjoining order in the BCCSL case will be continued today.

The enjoining order was to prevent the newly elected president of the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka, Thilanga Sumathipala and members of the Ex-co from functioning as office bearers of the BCCSL.

The enjoining order was brought by Mr. Clifford Ratwatte challenging the election of Mr. Sumathipala and members of the Ex-co at the BCCSL elections held on March 28, 1999.

Mr. Ratwatte had asked court to declare the election null and void on the grounds that the AGM was marred by violence militating against an atmosphere for a free and fair poll.

At the outset, S. L. Gunasekera counsel for Mr. Sumathipala sought a clarification from the judge on a section of his April 7th order which stated that the enjoining order would not prevent the former Ex-co from functioning.

District Judge A. W. A. Salam said his order did not grant the previous Ex-co to function as of a legal right. What it sought to convey was that no contempt charges will be brought against the previous Ex-co for so functioning.

The Board Constitution debars its Ex-co from functioning beyond date of the AGM.

The legality of the Ex-co continuing after this date can be brought up in another case, the judge stated.

Mr. Gunasekera urging the lifting of the enjoining order stated that the Cricket Board was presently non functional.It can't even sign a cheque or enter into a contract. The World Cup itself may not have Sri Lanka as a participant because player contracts cannot be signed.

Mr. Gunasekera also said that except for an averment that Mr. Abu Fuard was kicked there is no specific averment of any act of violence against the plaintiff or others. Neither have they identified any members of the mob.

On the other hand, the defendants have identified the perpetrators of thuggery at the AGM. Some of them who were present had no legitimate purpose to be there. It was Sumathipala's side who were trying to keep the mob at bay. All evidence points to plaintiff's supporters as the perpetrators of violence.

Mr. Gunasekera also stated that there is no provision in the constitution of the Board empowering the members of the Board to give a mandate to their representatives as to how the said representatives should exercise their right to vote.He said according to the Board Constitution the manner in which a representative may vote is not any way restricted or circumscribed once he satisfies the Board that he is duly nominated representative of the Board.

Mr. Romesh de Silva PC, senior counsel for Mr. Ratwatte stated that the submissions made by the learned counsel that we may not be participating in the World Cup due to the enjoining order was false and misleading.

For our part we could say that if the World Cup is lost it is beacuse of his client(Sumathipala) after whose election to office we have been losing matches steadily.Hence, there was no relevance in such talk.

Mr. De Silva referring to allegations of thuggery directed against his client said that this showed that thuggery in fact existed.If so, could there have been a free and fair election ?. ``How can the game of cricket which was one time a gentleman's game function in an atmosphere of intimidation ?.''

He said the votes that are cast at the AGM are votes of clubs. These clubs give mandates to their representatives to vote for the club's choice.We have submitted evidence showing that the majority of mandates were to go in favour of Mr. Ratwatte.However, there was violence and thuggery preventing a free and fair election.

L. C. Seneviratne PC with S. L. Gunasekera, Ronald Perera, Hemaka de Silva, Chandana Perera instructed by Paul Ratnayake Associates appeared for Thilanga Sumathipala.

Romesh de Silva PC with Palitha Kumarasinghe and Hemaka Amarasuriya instructed by G.G. Arulpragasam appeared for plaintiff Clifford Ratwatte.