GEORGETOWN, Guyana (CMC) — Three executive members of the Guyana Cricket Board (GCB) on Saturday distanced themselves from a controversial High Court injunction brought against regional players union WIPA, its president Dinanath Ramnarine and player management company WIPMACOL.

GCB vice-president Bissoon Singh, chairman of selectors Claude Raphael and Ronald Williams told a media conference they had never been in agreement with the move by the GCB and wanted to publicly disassociate themselves from it.

Last month, the GCB successfully brought an ex parte injunction against WIPA, Ramnarine and WIPMACOL, to prevent Ramnarine from acting on behalf of Guyana’s Champions League Twenty20-bound squad.

However, the trio said they never gave permission for their names to be included in the legal proceedings although they were GCB officials.

“If we lose this case each of us (executives) will be involved and could lose millions of dollars as individuals if Ramnarine really goes after the board,” said Singh, also the president of the Demerara Cricket Board.

“I want my name removed even if it means taking legal action against those who put it in the first place.

“Some on the GCB don’t realise the seriousness of the matter and we (GCB) are not a corporation then we could be penalized individually if things don’t go our way in court,” Singh added.

Both Raphael and Williams said they intended to have their lawyers ensure that they were disassociated from the case which again comes up for hearing on September 13, when the Chief Justice is set to rule on the preliminary objections filed by Ramnarine’s legal team on Thursday.

Raphael explained that the GCB executive had met to plan the way forward during the contracts dispute with WIPA, after Guyana had won the Caribbean Twenty20 in Trinidad.

However, he said they had not been aware the Board had moved ahead with the injunction.

“Most of us (GCB executives) did not know how the lawyer was retained and at what cost or that the injunction was filed,” he claimed.

“We were supposed to have gotten a draft document from the attorney but that never happened. We knew that the injunction was filed for when we read about it in the papers.”

The trio said they believed the matter between the GCB and WIPA had more to do with personality clashes than cricketing issues.

When contacted, GCB president Chetram Singh said the Board had “unanimously” agreed to move forward with legal action.

“It was unanimously agreed by all those present at a meeting with the executives that the injunction would be filed,” he argued.

Singh said that while Bissoon Singh was absent, both Raphael and Williams were at that meeting when the agreement was reached.

The new development comes two days after attorneys representing WIPA, Ramnarine and WIPMACOL appeared before acting Chief Justice Ian Chang to respond to the injunction brought by the GCB.

They argued that under the law of injunctions, their client should be fully compensated for what they lost and what they had spend to during the case, if it was proved that they were not in the wrong.

“Because an injunction matter is ex-parte… which means only one side is heard… the law provides for compensation if at a later stage the court is convinced that the injunction should not have been granted in the first place,” attorney Anil Nandalall argued Thursday.

“We intend to file a security for cost application… which means we want them (GCB) to lodge money with the court before we begin dealing with the substantive matter.”