KISWAH Chaitoo’s attorney Dinesh Rambally has described as “flawed on many grounds” the TT Cricket Board’s (TTCB) Supreme Appellate Committee’s (SAC) dismissal of Chaitoo’s appeal against his February 28 removal as TT Cricket Board (TTCB) treasurer.

Rambally issued a nine-page document on December 13 outlining three central reasons why he believes the SAC’s ruling in favour of TTCB’s vote of no confidence against Chaitoo may be amiss.

Chaitoo was removed as treasurer mainly because he breached Article 27 of the board’s constitution, which says, “The proceedings of all documents and all meetings of the executive and of the board shall be confidential and not be disclosed to unauthorised persons.”

This was after the SAC found Chaitoo breached “his duty of confidentiality” after reporting missing money – which resulted in the resignation of a TTCB employee – to the police without clearance from the executive board, and also sharing information from board meetings with the media for publication. An employee resigned in October, 2023 as a result of the matter.

Rambally’s statement said three TTCB members who voted for the no-confidence motion should have been recused because, quoting from the SAC’s ruling, “These members were negligent for signing blank cheques and leaving some in the custody of (an employee).”

Rambally said SAC “was plainly wrong on this issue.”

“There was no doubt that the three (members) signed blank cheques which facilitated the embezzlement by (an employee) .....The evidence was that (an employee siphoned hundreds of thousands of dollars from TTCB’s funds.”

Chaitoo criticised their actions and suggested the three refrain from signing further cheques until the matter was fully investigated. The former treasurer was not prepared to sweep anything under the carpet and he reported it to the Fraud Squad.

Rambally wrote, “There was no doubt that they signed the cheques. Whatever the motivations for the actions taken...a fair-minded and well-informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that, when the three gentlemen as members of the executive decided to be present and voted at the Special General Meeting, their minds were jointly and/or severally affected by unconscious bias.”

Chaitoo’s attorney also questioned how attorney Gerald Ramdeen, who was one of a three-member committee selected by the board to “determine the gaps in TTCB’s procedures that allowed allegations of embezzlement to occur, identifying the person/s responsible, assessing the current protocols and making recommendations for enhancements to prevent future occurrences” could investigate under these terms, but also advise the board at the same time.

Additionally, Rambally said although Chaitoo was accused of breaching the board’s code of ethics, there was no existing code.

He described the ruling as “amorphous, inchoate and disconnected from procedural fairness.”

In conclusion, Rambally added that Chaitoo was removed because: “Speaking the truth is no longer considered noble and calling for gr