Sri Lanka Rugby: Provincial Unions stand firm against hasty Constitutional amendments

Monday, 15 July 2024 01:55 -     - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}

In a commendable display of unity and resolve, seven Provincial Unions, members of Sri Lanka Rugby (SLR), have successfully obtained a stay order preventing the Ministry of Sports from proceeding with proposed amendments to the SLR constitution. 

This amendment was part of the agenda for the Special General Meeting (SGM) scheduled for today. The writ application, numbered 438/2024, was filed in the Court of Appeal on 6 July and was addressed on 10 July.

Sources said the Provincial Unions have no objections to the Special Annual General Meeting proceeding as planned. Their issue lies with the proposed constitutional amendments, which they believe should follow proper protocols and policies. The unions assert that World Rugby’s pressure on SLR, especially favouring ‘A’ Division Clubs and threatening suspension, is not only heavy-handed but also poorly managed by its representative, David Carrigy, during his recent fact-finding mission to Sri Lanka.



Support for Provincial Unions

It is crucial to recognise the Provincial Unions’ rightful stance. They are advocating for a thorough, inclusive process for constitutional changes, where discussions occur first within SLR, then move to the SLR Council, and finally involve the respective clubs. This ensures that all stakeholders have a voice and that changes are not dictated by external pressures.

Sports Minister Harin Fernando must tread carefully. His attempts to bulldoze political influence into sports administration can be detrimental. Political interference, especially in sports, often contravenes the Olympic Charter, undermining the integrity and autonomy of sports bodies.



Missteps and accountability

World Rugby’s representative, David Carrigy, seemed more interested in the grievances of ‘A’ Division Clubs than engaging with SLR members. This direct approach bypassed the proper channels, ignoring that club memberships fall under their respective Provincial Unions, which in turn are members of SLR. Such actions foster division rather than unity.

Additionally, the Ministry of Sports’ suspension of SLR, coinciding with Carrigy’s visit and World Rugby’s subsequent suspension of SLR, lacked a clear rationale. It added to the confusion and suspicion of political manoeuvring. The Provincial Unions correctly point out that any constitutional amendments should be meticulously reviewed and not rushed under pressure.



Financial mismanagement and need for clarity

The Provincial Unions highlight an ongoing issue: the mismanagement of funds and the questionable decision by World Rugby to deduct £ 50,000 from the development fund for fines imposed on SLR officials Asanga Seneviratna, Lasitha Gunaratna, and Nalin De Silva. This deduction has directly impacted the development programs of the Provincial Unions. Carrigy and World Rugby owe an explanation regarding the lack of accountability for these officials and the rationale behind penalising development funds.



The Way Forward

The Provincial Unions are open to recommendations but reject any form of bullying from ‘A’ Division Clubs or World Rugby. No changes should be enforced without a comprehensive review. They support the AGM and are committed to ensuring good governance, accountability, and transparency within SLR. They propose forming a three-member independent committee of eminent retired judges and legal experts in rugby to study the recommendations and provide balanced solutions.

The current recommendations disproportionately strip power from the Provincial Unions and hand it to the clubs. It’s essential to remember that Provincial Unions contribute significantly to the development of rugby at all levels, from youth to national teams, while clubs mainly participate in limited tournaments.

The general rugby loving community believe that the Provincial Unions’ stand is both firm and justified and that Sports Minister Harin Fernando should respect their autonomy and avoid overstepping boundaries that could undermine the sport’s governance and integrity.

 

COMMENTS