In the long history of Schools’ Challenge Quiz, no school has ever been banned for bad behaviour — at least not publicly banned for behaviour that undermines the reputation of the competition. Now, however, that has happened, with

Television Jamaica (TVJ) barring Kingston College (KC) and Camperdown from entering in the upcoming years.

All indications are that Kingston College did not have due process (I do not know about Camperdown). Did KC have a lawyer to represent them before the tribunal that decided on the school’s fate? Was KC told in clear detail what

TVJ‘s intentions were? Did KC have the benefit of a decision taken by independent judges? Did KC know what they needed to establish in order to avoid being banned?

A report in The Star newspaper says that KC was banned because of comments made by a coach about a specific quiz match involving KC. In other words,TVJ is saying that no coach can criticise the competition’s organisers, or you do so at risk of suspension.

Did

TVJ have a hearing to get the views of this coach concerning his comments? Is TVJ aware of the basic rule of natural justice – audi alteram partem – that you must hear the other side before you make decisions? Have they heard the coach’s side in this matter?

From my understanding, the coach gave arguments as to why he believed TVJ had not acted fairly in its treatment of KC in a particular match. How has TVJ sought to answer the underlying case made out by the coach? I understand that, to this day, the coach’s points remain unanswered. This cannot be right. The validity of the charges against the coach must obviously turn on the validity of his charges against TVJ.

Finally, what has TVJ to say about fairness to the KC students who have been in training for the competition? What have these boys done wrong to deserve suspension from the competition? How can they reasonably be punished for a dispute betweenTVJ and KC old boys?