Low Graphics Site
White bar
.: Latest News :. .: News in Pictures :.
Dawn e-paper
Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Horoscope Recipes Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker



Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Weather




FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon TV Guide Cowasjee Ayaz Irfan Hussain Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
Previous Story DAWN - the Internet Edition Next Story


September 05, 2006 Tuesday Sha'aban 11, 1427

Click to learn more...
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)



Zimbabwe cricket heads for another crisis


HARARE, Sept 4: Zimbabwe Cricket is again in trouble after it was revealed that the country's Sports and Recreation Commission (SRC) has refused to endorse its new draft constitution.

The SRC, a government-appointed body responsible for overseeing all sport inside Zimbabwe, is understood to have rejected the controversial constitution and asked ZC to re-draft some of the clauses.

Sources close to the board have said that that the SRC is particularly unhappy with the way the constitution effectively rules out any challenge to the ruling elite.

It was the SRC who scrapped the old board in January and appointed Peter Chingoka to head an interim executive, with the proviso that a new constitution and fresh elections be organised by July 31. It is now believed that the tenure of the interim committee has been extended to Dec 31.

The Zimbabwe's Independent corroborated this, and claimed that it had seen a copy of a letter from Charles Nhemachena, the SRC's director general, to Ozias Bvute, ZC's general manager confirming that the draft constitution had been rejected.

That was subsequently confirmed by a ZC spokesman.

Critics of the board had been deeply unhappy with the constitution, claiming that as over half of the executive would be unelected government appointees, it was simply not democratic. There was also understood to be a clause effectively barring anyone from tabling a motion of no confidence in the executive.—Agencies






Previous Story Top of Page Next Story

Seprater
Contributions
Privacy Policy
© DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2006