Govt. must fix SL Rugby crises sans influence by vested parties

By a special correspondent

The Sri Lanka Rugby is currently in turmoil as the Director General allegedly continues to avoid having the SLR Elections despite the agreement reached in the Court of Appeal.

The SLR election was originally scheduled for 21 January but one of the contestants Lasitha Gunaratne whose nomination was rejected by the Election Committee appointed by the DG of Sports. The AGM was indefinitely postponed purportedly based on the complaints received by him from Asia Rugby President and some other interested parties. The postponement tantamount to violation of Court order. Questions are being raised whether the AR President wrote to the DG on his own accord or as per the decision taken by the Ex-Co of AR.

The crisis of the SLR was created due to the SLR Committee headed by the then Acting President Nalin De Silva and the Ex-Co not having the Elections as scheduled regardless of the stakeholders being the Provincial Unions informing them that the AGM should be held. This was ignored by the then SLR and forced the then Sport Minister Harin Fernando to dissolve the SLR and appoint the DG as the Competent Authority to conduct the AGM. 

It is alleged that the DG chose to amend the SLR Constitution rather than conduct the AGM violating the mandate given to him. This prompted the Provincial Unions – the key stakeholders as per the constitution, to seek redress from the Court of Appeal where it was agreed by all parties that the AGM would be held as per the current Constitution and subsequently the amendments to the Constitution will be looked into by the new elected body of the SLR. 

As it stands now there are 2 court cases related to the SLR Elections – one by Lasitha Gunaratne against The Election Committee and the other by the Provincial Unions against the DG for violating the Appeal Court order given to hold the SLR AGM as per the current Constitution. 

The change of the Constitution is pushed by the A Division Clubs seeking voting rights to the SLR and also minimising the say of the Provincial Unions in the management of the SLR. The Provincial Unions claim that they are primarily responsible for the growth of the game in the country and there has been little or no effort by the A Division Clubs. They claim that the Clubs are only focused on their pool of players numbering to about 40 except for the armed forces. Some of these prominent A Division Clubs do not even have a B Division team. Prior to the current Constitution coming into place in the early 1990s it was the Clubs that had control of the SLR and rugby was most confined to Colombo and Kandy and less than 20 schools playing competitive rugby. The Provincial Unions claim credit to the fact that growth of the game came about after the introduction of the current Constitution and today there are over 100 schools playing competitive rugby in almost all Provinces. The growth of the game amongst females is mainly due to the efforts of the Provincial Unions and not due to any contribution from the A Division Clubs. Provincial Unions also state that the large number of A Division male players of today have been the products of the Provincial Unions. 

Since the inception of the current Constitution all the Presidents of the SLR except one have been from the A Division Clubs. Is it coincidental that the A Division Clubs are looking to change the Constitution now due to the fact that the last elected president of the SLR was from a non A Division Club? It is disheartening that those pushing for a change in the Constitution are the very people elected with the backing of the Provincial Unions.

Given these undercurrents, it is important that the current Government looks into this without being influenced by vested interest and provide a solution that is beneficial to Sri lanka Rugby as a whole not to the benefit of the few.