8 months ago
53
BEACH SOCCER Jamaica (BSJ) president Pat Garel is feeling very encouraged after Tuesday’s court-management hearing with the Jamaica Football Federation (JFF), which failed to make its submissions on the day, the BSJ has said in a release.
The case was adjourned until March 13, however, the JFF was ordered to make its submissions at least two days prior.
Garel said her group has been boosted by the latest development and that they remain steadfast in seeing this through to the end as she firmly believes that the court will make the right decision going forward.
“Yesterday (Tuesday) was very encouraging. We stand firm in saying that we are the legitimate body that ought to be accredited based on the constitution that was adopted by the JFF and assisted by FIFA in December 2022.
“I am still encouraged because I believe there is a constitution that runs this country, and there is a constitution that is supposed to run the football.
“So we were born on a day, but it was not yesterday. I have not lost faith in the justice system, and I think the judge was born on a day, and it was not yesterday,” she said with a tongue-in-cheek jab at the JFF’s failure to produce submissions.
If the Court of Appeal rules in favour of the BSJ, the injunction on the March 17 election will once again be imposed, which would effectively postpone the election until the case, which starts April 24, is heard.
NOT THE INTENTION
However, Garel insists that it is not the BSJ’s intention to stop the election.
Garel argued that blatant disregard for the constitution and Court of Appeal recommendations to the JFF and the electoral committee must not go unchallenged.
“Beach soccer did not go to court to stop anybody’s election. Beach soccer went to court to get the right under the constitution to vote in the next election,” she declared.
“Beach soccer has gone to the court because the Jamaica Football Federation has done a great disservice to Beach Soccer Jamaica, and that is what we are in the court about.
“So we are not trying to stop an election. We are not trying to disenfranchise anyone that Dennis Chung is talking about. But we won’t stop short of insisting that until the highest court says we are wrong and that we are not the people, we are not prepared to stop, and we have made that clear.”
She is confident they have an airtight case and eagerly awaits all the discrepancies to come to light when the actual hearing begins next month.
“We didn’t lack sending our submission, and we did not lack following the court’s order.
“We are entitled to two votes under the constitution, and we decided that they (JFF) should not take two executives from the JFF and put them in a place where beach soccer belongs.
“So we are not prepared to stop at anything until the JFF does the right thing. Somebody has to be a sacrifice and be the martyr, and I am not saying I am Nanny, but they have been getting away with blue murder for too long.”
However, JFF lawyer Kaysian Kennedy said the non-submission in court on Tuesday was nothing out of the ordinary while noting that they have been compliant with the court’s directives.
Kennedy explained that they had already made submissions for an injunction hearing and that for a case-management hearing, it is not uncommon to wait on the judge for further instructions before proceeding.
NOTHING UNUSUAL
“What happened at the court management conference was nothing unusual. It is where the court actually puts timelines on the parties to do things.
“One of the timelines presented was to allow the respondent, that is the JFF, to file their submissions prior to the hearing of the appeal.
“So we are complying with the court’s orders to proceed to the hearing of the appeal next week,” she said.
She added: “We had submitted something for the injunctions, but now, we are submitting something for the appeal itself.
“They are using the same (injunction) submission, but we will be providing something additional. So nothing unusual happened, and there was no wrongdoing on the part of the JFF.”
Meanwhile, the BSJ release accused Chung of providing false information when he stated in a Gleaner article on March 5 entitled. ‘Case management hearing: JFF, BSJ back in court today’, that “the injunction has been dismissed about three times”. The release also continued: “He (Chung) either isn’t aware of facts, is ignorant of the process, or has misled the public.”
However, Chung is standing by his pronouncements.
“They have said what I am saying about the three injunctions (being denied by the court) is incorrect.
“But if you check, the first time they applied for a mandatory injunction and the court turned it down, and they had to come back and apply for a temporary injunction.
“After the temporary injunction, it was heard 28 days later, and the court turned it down again. Then they applied for an injunction with the Court of Appeal, and they turned it down. So that is three. And each time, we issued a press release on it,” said Chung.
English (US) ·