Comments May

As a chess parent, I wonder if this fighting between various bodies/executives will come to an end and an amicable solution reached for the ultimate benefit of the chess player.

In the meantime, I am very concerned with the lack of information on the following:

You are aware that this was a secret ballot and we are fully in support of transparency, however, in this instance we are afraid that the voters (irrespective of the way they voted) would be victimized and therefore have only revealed their identities for verification purposes to the now acting president of Chessa. It is up to the voter to decided whether or not they wish their vote to be made public.

Mr. Ball has been accused in the past of “trying to avoid transparency”. I quote from Mr. Aitchison’s memo of 18 May: “I wonder what you are hiding and why are you trying to avoid TRANSPARENCY. Let me remind you that this is a public issue, at the very least among the chess community”

I am definitely not part of Mr Ball’s fan club, but in all fairness, how can the man be accused of avoiding transparency if the answers to the four questions above are withheld?

Please do the right thing and disclose the information requested by Mr. Ball as part of total transparency

Hi All,

Lynne raises very pertinent issues and highlights what has obviously been going on
with LOTTO and other funds, but nobody has been questioning.
it is clear that this whole process has not been transparent and certainly not been discussed or approved by the CHESSA
Council.

Mr. Ball stated in one of his recent “not to be published emails” that the CHESSA financials had never been doubted,
but it is now obvious that they have also never been scrutinized. This deliberate attempt to infer that certain of the unions
including SAJCA mismanage their finances is a smoke screen to take the attention away from CHESSA’S own financial mismanagement.

I agree with Lynne that all these questions need to be explained and a full audit applied to the CHESSA books.

Brian Aitchison
Chairman Gauteng West

I would just like to clarify the position of GW and to put some proportion to accusations made against them. Attached is an extract of the distribution of LOTTO and Government funds to all regions from the CHESSA financials distributed at the Council meeting on 14 April.

Of the R1M LOTTO and government money spent in the past 2 years, R22,000 was spent by GW (2.2% of the funds), a far smaller percentage than other smaller regions.

GW represents one of the 3 biggest regions, yet all the noise is being made over the 2,2% of funds that GW has spent or been accused of mis managing. A full report accounting for the full R22,000 has been given to the CHESSA Executive.

Is no one concerned about the BIGGER picture and the other 97.8% of CHESSA funding that was spent? Some of the figures look really dubious yet a blind eye is cast, or is it just a general lack of interest? No financial questions were allowed to be raised at the Council meeting on 14 April. Is this of no concern? Please re visit the full expenses that occurred during the past financial FY2006 year (not attached) but were handed out in the financial statements at the meeting. Whether expenses are agreed or disagreed, members should be entitled to query what our money is being spent on, and why GW is not happy.

Mr Theunissen is totally in the dark as to who is responsible when the financial toffee hits the fan. Please note that it is ALWAYS the executive, in this case Mr Ball's, responsibility to ensure a sound financial position and sound financial reporting. In this case, I recall it was said that the treasurer informed the Council the previous evening that the statements were not the final product and that they was not audited. Mr Ball however confirmed at the meeting that the statements were indeed audited and intentionally misled the meeting.

As for GW. Proof is available to confirm that the LOTTO question was discussed with mr Parkin and clarified to his satisfaction. It is now only Mr Parkin who denies it. Mr Aitchison clearly stated that he cannot be held responsible as to what happen in GW BEFORE his election.

There are no excuses. I still cannot understand why the writing on the wall is not clear. Nobody is bigger than the game and nobody is irreplaceable, or is the All African Games or the next Fide meeting the attraction?

Me Ellappen should at all times be impartial. She should not attend a meeting with SASCOC with the Ex Council members.

Dear Mr. Theunnissen,

Let me second what Banie has already stated – PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT before you comment.
The only persons grasping at straws here are you, Mr.Ball and Mr. Parkin and no one else.

SAJCA did not get sanctioned because of being “financially unsound” as you put it, but rather because they were late
in submitting their financials –big difference.
GW did not have to refund money because of unsound financial practises but rather because the money had not been spent
by the end of September 2006, or at least this is BERNIE PARKIN’S STORY. The money refunded was not LOTTO money
at all.

While I am on this subject let me also just mention that according to Bernie this money had to be returned to government
if it was not spent by the end of September 2006. At the CHESSA meeting of the 14th April Bernie stood up and agreed to give the R25 000.00
returned form GW to FS as bridging finance for the nationals in December 2007 now WHY HAS THIS MONEY NOT BEEN PAID BACK TO GOVERNMENT?

As far as responsibility for the LOTTO funds Bernie Parkin himself, and he has admitted to it entered into a private contract between himself
and the then Chairman of GW and neither of them consulted the GW Executive in this regard. If you had been listening properly and not selectively at the CHESSA meeting of the 14th April, you would have heard GW offer to assist CHESSA in any investigation into this matter. We have nothing to hide.
if the CHESSA minutes from this meeting had not been such utter garbage and there were not so many untruths and omissions in the minutes,
you would have noticed that what I am saying is the correct version of events.

As far a the CHESSA financials are concerned Banie is without blame. The Chessa executive was fully aware and informed
at their meeting the night before that these were draft documents and that the treasurer would not be present at the meeting.
Mr. Ball and Mr. Parken deliberately misled the council by presenting the documents as audited financial statements. Please look at the cover page
And you will see that it is dated the 14th April with a place for the Presidents signature. This is of course normal procedure for a draft copy
of the financial statements. If you look at the second page - ‘THE INDEPEDANT AUDITORS REPORT” you will notice that this report is is dated the day of the CHESSA meeting –14 April 2007 – NOTHING STRANGE HERE.

I am sorry but Mr. Parkin and Mr. Ball deliberately tried to mislead the council.

Mr. Theunnissen I suggest that you open your eyes and ears and starting checking your facts. I also suggest that
you stop following so blindly and start thinking about what is good for Chess. After all you do represent a region
that deserves better.

Regards
Brian Aitchison
Chairman Gauteng West

It will be appreciated if you can get your facts right. The Treasurer submitted a draft AFS to the CHESSA Executive and made it clear that, since most of the information contained in the draft set was only received during the week of the Executive meeting, AND the Treasurer still had questions about a number of issues (ie Lotto allocations, etc and missing vouchers - both of which the Executive Director only passed on to the Treasure almost a month AFTER the Council meeting), it could not have been submitted to the Auditors. The Audit report – which you choose to refer to as a “fictitious” letter, was – as fully disclosed at the Executive meeting on 13 April, a draft to indicate to the members what could be expected. However, only when such a letter is placed on a letterhead AND signed, can it become official.

If it – for whatever reason – was either presented incorrectly on the 14th, or, perhaps misunderstood, then I trust that this will assist those that were not well informed, nor understand the process, to have a better understanding of the position.

I do understand that most people that are entering this debate were not at the Executive meeting on the 13th, hence those may not have this information available to them.

Till I don't have proof who voted in this so called abortion I can only assume that you are grasping at some straws. If you are so sure of yourself why haven’t we seen anything about the vote? Secondly since when is sajca and gw running CHESSA's business? Both parties has been financially unsound, firstly sajca loosing the right to host tournaments because of bad financial reporting and secondly gw ending up having to refund LOTTO money.

I still maintain that this is only a smoke screen to divert attention away from sajca and gw.

I fully agree that the financials that was presented to council should be investigated, but under no circumstances should the blame be laid at the door of the executive. Under no circumstances did the treasurer inform the exec that he had attached a letter from a CA that has never inspected the books. Serious questions should be asked about the treasurer's actions. I find it very interesting that Mr Aitchison was very adamant at the meeting that nobody on the gw executive should be held responsible for any wrong doing with LOTTO money because only one person was to blame for the unfortunate incident, yet he refuses to see wrong doing on the part of the CHESSA treasurer and places the blame for a "fictitious" letter squarely on the shoulders of Mr Parkin and Mr Ball? If they are to be held responsible for the "fictitious" letter that the treasurer attached to the financials, surely the gw exec should also be held responsible for the incident with the LOTTO money.

I agree with Mark on this point. CHESSA now needs to inform SASCOC in
writing that Mr. Ball & Mr. Parkin have been removed from office and are no
longer part of the CHESSA executive.

The current President Mrs. Emelia Ellappen should immediately inform SASCOC
of this position and ask for confirmation in writing from SASCOC.

It is also interesting to note that Mr. Ball did not sign the email below
as the President of CHESSA but merely as Laurence Ball.
Maybe he is not so sure himself.

Does Mr. Ball and Mr.Parkin believe that they have a legal basis?
this matter has not been decided by a court or by arbitration.

The legal opinion so far is just that "opinion" and until tested in a court or by some other body carries no weight whatsoever.

All of this opinion has been forthcoming from one camp, that of CHESSA and from nowhere else. If Mr. Ball and Mr. Parkin dispute their removal from the CHESSA EXCO. They need to challenge it using the correct procedures.

In the meantime I believe that CHESSA goes forward with the new Executive and new President until they can prove otherwise and are re-instated.

Mr. Ball is in no position to dictate to SAJCA what they may or may not publish on the SAJCA website, especially if he is no longer the President of CHESSA. This on going issue with CHESSA is out there in the public domain and has been so since day one. This issue is in the interest of the public at large and especially the Chessa members who pay their affiliation fee to this body.

I would also like to point out that, I have seen or heard no popular support expressed for either Mr. Ball or Mr. Parkin from any quarter other than from biased legal opinion. It seems to me that they don't have the support of the average person out there. I have also heard no one complain about any matter on the SAJCA website or any other. In fact the only person that has ever challenged this has been Mr. Ball himself. It seems he protests to much.

Mr. Reddy indicated that he and SASCOC still recognise the President and the Executive of Chessa until he is other wise informed by Chessa. If you are saying that SASCOC is dictating to Chessa how and when to run its business then we would have to have this statement clarified by them. We would hope that the current Chessa Executive would honor the council decision and would inform SASCOC that Mr Ball and Mr Parkin no longer hold office on the Executive.

Today four people from the CHESSA Executive viz Emelia Ellappen (Vice President), Omar Esau (Development Officer), Bernie Parkin (Executive
Director) and myself (President) visited Mr T Reddy, who is the General manager of SASCOC.

Mr Reddy stated emphatically that SASCOC continued to recognise the existing President and his Executive Board. It was made clear that after the next election in September 2007 that CHESSA would advise SASCOC of any changes in the CHESSA Executive.

Hi All,

Well put Lynne. You told it just like it was.
I now challenge Mr. Phillips and the CHESSA Executive to respond to this
with the truth and the facts. My guess it that there not going to be a reply
or it will be denied.

Regards
Brian Aitchison
Chairman Gauteng West

Dear Mr. Phillips,

I have read your letter about the vote of no confidence concerning CHESSA executive. It appears that only certain information has been collected relating to the vote of no confidence and only one side of the story has been researched. The vote of no confidence was brought about by SAJCA, and was seconded by GW for a couple of reasons.

I am not sure if you have received some of the documentation that was sent to the CHESSA executive, secretary, including to the President and Executive Director on 13 March 2007 for addition to the Agenda for the CHESSA Council meeting held on 14 April 2007. These items were to be discussed, whether agreed or disagreed. This correspondence was received by many people on the address list (see below).

The correct procedure was followed to send anything 1 month before the meeting (13 March) to the CHESSA secretary for the agenda. When it was NOT added to the agenda the following day (14 March), a query was raised. A hard copy was also given to Mr. Parkin personally at the SAJCA meeting on 24 March at the Lesedi Conference centre in front of a many CHESSA/SAJCA members in a full meeting, again with a request for it to be added to the agenda. Both Mr. Ball and Mr. Parkin were fully aware of the intention to discuss certain items at the council meeting, as they had referred members to attend the meeting if they wanted anything discussed. This was again (for the 3rd time) not added to the agenda until the morning of the council meeting (14 April) despite several requests. It was then agreed to add them to the meeting, and another set of hard copies was handed to Mr. Parkin early in the morning of April 14. This was also NOT recorded in the DRAFT minutes of the council meeting that were sent out by the secretary after 14 April. Only certain items are recorded in the minutes, not reflecting the full details. Which is another item of concern when the minuted were review by both Mr. Ball and Mr. Parkin.
Is their any point in requesting for items to be added to the agenda if one is just ignored time and time again, despite following CHESSA’s procedures?

The meeting was Closed before the agenda was completed, as still none if these items were discussed. The facts are:
NOT all items on the agenda had been completed before the meeting was closed.
Mr. Ball’s comments are always “bring it to the next meeting” which was done, and now because the meeting was closed with unfinished business, the response is still just the same – bring it to the following meeting. This will mean months later, and many items in question will have since past, again leaving full authority to just a few people without any input or agreement from the rest of the council.

Members were told if they wanted to discuss anything, they should attend the council meeting, which would be the correct forum and procedure. When this was done, they were still side stepped by not being allowed to raise any concerns or queries. When items were added to the agenda in the correct way, they were still ignored. This is partly why there was a vote of no confidence, because there is no freedom of speech, whether in a respectfully controlled or uncontrolled manner, or whether on the agenda or not.

The meeting could not have been closed by the correct procedure if items were still on the agenda. If the meeting was not closed, the vote of no confidence was handled as part of the meeting, according to the constitution.

I’m sure you have received the concerns about CHESSA’s financial reporting at the council meeting. Without the presence of the treasurer, to try and have drafted unaudited financial statements with an auditor’s letter attached to the front page, dated on the same date as the council meeting (14 April), without the knowledge of the auditors ever having seen the statements would not be accepted or passed by the meeting. To deliberately try and present these statements and have them passed as audited knowing this was misleading, really casts a shadow of doubt about the ethics of the executive committee. Apparently it was clearly stated by the treasurer the evening before to the executive committee that these were only DRAFT financial statements, and they had NOT been audited by any means. Again all financial questions were avoided at the meeting, to again “be discussed at the next meeting” in six months time. This was yet another cause for concern for the vote of no confidence, apart from the fact that the treasurer does not even control the cheque book!

Obviously there is always more than one side to each story, so before jumping to any conclusions, particularly if not even present at the meeting, all areas should be fairly researched, and BOTH SIDES ARE ENTITLED TO BE HEARD. It is the process and not necessarily the outcomes of discussions that are of concern, as these could still be debated and negotiated. It is a sad time when ego and power struggles take more time than actually organizing events or getting good things done. We are all in this for the sake of developing CHESS in SA and not to see how powerful we can be, as all this will do is turn enthusiast to either not help at all or just drop the wonderful sport altogether.
(See email below confirming previous correspondence with CHESSA, about items on the agenda)

Regards
Lynne van Rensburg
Gauteng Junior Chess Secretary

Subject: CHESSA meeting Agenda

To the CHESSA secretary and executive committee members.

Gauteng West (Juniors) places the motions listed below on the agenda for the forthcoming CHESSA Council meeting to be held on 14 April 2007

1.       Motions pertaining to discipline:
1.1.    That it be resolved that a committee of experts present to the CHESSA Council a proposed disciplinary code and procedure.
1.2.    That it be resolved that the proposed disciplinary code and procedure prepared by the committee of experts, be published on the CHESSA website at least 30 calendar days in advance of the date of presentation to the CHESSA Council.

2.       Motions pertaining to the format and structure of national chess tournaments in general.
2.1.    That it be resolved that all decisions on the format and structure of national chess tournaments be taken by the Controlling body, i.e. SAJCA, Woman’s Association, Schools, of the specific structure concerned and presented to the CHESSA Council for ratification (ie. no motion pertaining to the structure and format of a national tournament may be tabled unless it was endorsed by the body under whose auspices such tournament is presented) and that this power may not be delegated.
2.2.    That it be resolved that the format and structure of any national chess tournament may not be changed during the period of 180 calendar days immediately preceding the commencement date of such tournament.
2.3.    That it be resolved that no motion that may affect the format and structure of a national chess tournament may be tabled at a CHESSA Council meeting, unless such motion was published on the CHESSA website at least 30 calendar days in advance of such meeting.
2.4.    That it be resolved that the format and structure of all national chess tournaments be published as permanent features of the CHESSA website.

3.       Motions pertaining to selection criteria and composition of national chess teams, as well as Managers and Coaches.
3.1.    That it be resolved that all decisions on selection criteria and composition of teams, managers and coaches to represent South Africa in international chess tournaments be taken by the Controlling body of the specific structure concerned and presented to the CHESSA Council for ratification and that this power may not be delegated
3.2.    That it be resolved that the selection criteria and composition of any team to represent South Africa in any international chess tournament may not be changed during the period of 240 calendar days immediately preceding the commencement date of any national chess tournament featuring in the application of such criteria.
3.3.    That it be resolved that no motion that may affect the selection criteria and composition of any team to represent South Africa in an international chess tournament may be tabled at a CHESSA Council meeting, unless such motion was published on the CHESSA website at least 30 calendar days in advance of such meeting.
3.4.    That it be resolved that the selection criteria and composition of all teams to represent South Africa in international chess tournaments be published as permanent features of the CHESSA website.
4.       Motions pertaining to the annual FIDE World Youth Chess Championships.
4.1.    That it be resolved that South Africa be represented at the annual FIDE World Youth Chess Championships by a national junior team comprised of 3 players per gender in every age group catered for by the convenors of that tournament.
4.2.    That it be resolved that the selection criteria for the team to represent South Africa in the annual FIDE World Youth Chess Championships shall be the selection criteria that were used in 2005.
5.       Motions pertaining to the annual CHESSA Junior Chess Championships and to the annual South African Junior Closed Chess Championships.
5.1.    That it be resolved that the annual CHESSA Junior Chess Championships be convened under the auspices of the South African Junior Chess Association.
5.2.    That it be resolved that the open individual championship event of the annual South African Junior Chess Championships be determined over 9 rounds – and team events revert back to 5 teams per section, or increase the tournament by 1 day.
5.3.    That it be resolved that the annual South African Junior Closed Chess Championships be convened under the auspices of the South African Junior Chess Association.

Regards
Gauteng West (Junior) Chess Association

Can you not get the message? How thick skinned can one be?
Please just go away and stop this nonsense!

It is quite clear that the attorney relies solely on what was put in front
of him by Mr Ball.
Again it is, as the Minutes of the meeting, a one sided affair.
The attorney was told that the business was completed (par 4), which was not
the case at all.
BUT the meeting was still very much in progress.
The whole approach of the attorney is based on something that took place
after the "lawful closure of the meeting".
The closure of the meeting was in fact not "lawfull" as discussions were
still going on. The meeting was in fact
illegally closed in such a haste to prevent the meeting from voting. I am
sure if the true facts are considered
the advice to mr Ball will be quite different.
We have to accept that the closure was unlawful.
The voting which took place after a new chairman was elected,
was fair and I cannot agree that the voting and outcome was illegal can be
regarded as nil and void.

To answer your questions:
What started this debate?
It is the mis-management of Chessa affairs as well as the autocratic behaviour of the 2 individuals.
Why is Gauteng Juniors so enthusiastic about getting them out?
A vote of no confidence was raised against the 2 individuals & circulated to all Council Members. The majority of the votes received was in favour of having them ousted.
What do they have to hide?
That is the million dollar question?
Keeping the debate behind closed doors:
As part of transformation & communication we should all be involving ourselves in the affairs of Chessa, which should not be run by individuals with their own agendas – they are elected to serve us by the Council and, therefore, they are answerable to all of us and cannot take decisions on their own.

I am a junior chess player first of all I would like to know what started this debate and why guateng junoirs are so enthusiastic about getting Mr Ball and Mr Parkin out?! It seems to me like they have something to hide? I would also suggest that they concern themselves with fixing their own problems before they get involved with other politics? I also think that the comments page should not be published and you should keep this behind closed doors because this page does not advertise chess very well and players shouldn't concern themselves with politics! Everyone should rather leave their personal problems an give there attention to chess and chess development instead

I am so happy to see so many advocates and lawyers doing free work for the good of chess. Where are they all when their service are needed free for the real meaningful work.
I am also glad to see that this is a legal opinion only and like all opinions should be seen as that. Mr. Philips like all the others has only heard one side of the story and formed a legal opinion based on this without even checking his facts.
Once more Mr. Philips was not present at the April 14th meeting, if he took any truth from the garbage Chessa called minutes, then it is no wonder he came to this opinion. Mr. Philips is also obviously not aware of the 11.8 clause of the Chessa constitution and probably has not even read the Chessa constitution.
We are not dealing here with some Companies act or protocol that governs or regulates the way a meeting should be conducted or motions tabled and whether votes are lawful or unlawful. This is legal opinion that to my mind is totally irrelevant in this case. If Mr. Philips would like to hand out free opinion we would be happy to use it where it would be more useful.
And finally the bottom line is that Mr.Ball & Nr. Parkin are no longer wanted in these positions as the majority of the National council and some of their own executive do not have confidence in their ability any longer And have expressed this in the motion. Any person would under normal circumstances have resigned and walked away. This stubborn refusal to except the inevitable only proves that they are their for themselves and not because they care about the sport.
Mr. Ball & Mr. Parkin it is time for you to except the outcome.

I send you this message with a memo from Mr Ball.
Have a lovely weekend and a brilliant week filled with joy, peace and happiness.

Attached is a letter from Attorney Raymond Phillips concerning this matter.
Mr Phillips opinion concurs with other Legal Opinion that has been stated viz Marius Van Zyl (Attorney), Advocate Francois Strydom and (verbally)Advocate Lyndon Bouah.
The Management Committee of the CHESSA Executive is satisfied that:

a) The Motion was not properly tabled.
b) Any vote purportedly taken is invalid.
c) In any event the proposal failed to secure the necessary majority support for the motion.

In the meantime the CHESSA Executive will continue to function as it has been since the last Council Meeting.

What can I say!!
Well done SAJCA and congratulations Emelia. You have the full support
of Gauteng West.

Regards
Brian
Gauteng West

I once again find it amusing that the most important instruction in all your correspondence to date is to try and attempt to keep the current issues from the general Council members as well as the chess public. I wonder what you are hiding and why are you trying to avoid TRANSPARENCY. Let me remind you that this is a public issue, at the very least among the chess community.
Chessa, and you Mr.Ball should rightfully have no part in a Vote of no confidence directed at your duties. However you have continued to scamper it at every opportunity. The interference by you in one of your emails instructing all unions and CHESSA members not to vote MUST be seen in a serious light and GW intends to use this against you as comeuppance at the correct forum.
To this day, the knee-jerk reaction preliminary minutes of the 14th April National Council meeting, issued at your instruction, have not been revised, corrected and/or distributed to the Council members as pointed out and I believe that they were released expediently to deceive council members.
The issues and truth surrounding the CHESSA financial statements have also not been resolved.
Therefore you have no RIGHT at this juncture to request information unless done via the Council forum, thus I believe SAJCA should ignore your clutching at straws. Yours is to just respect the wishes of the majority who feel you carry no confidence of leadership.
Once more I must stress that there is no reason why your current email cannot be circulated to the chess fraternity as this issue directly affects them and its what is called TRANSPARENCY. I believe SAJCA should forward your mail to all. If in future you want your emails not to be read, DO NOT WRITE THEM or KEEP THEM TO YOURSELF. Chessa is the Federation of the people.
Kindly see this as a serious warning. I believe if you at even this stage you refuse to budge. I will recommend that SASCOC and or GOVERNMENT to be approached with the idea to impeach you.

The protracted issue regarding SAJCA’s vote of no confidence in the President, Mr Ball and the Executive Director, Mr Parkin has now been resolved.

We invoked clause 11.8 of the Chessa constitution and the vote of no confidence was not overturned and therefore, in line with the Chessa constitution the Vice President, Mrs Emelia Ellappen, will henceforth perform the duties of the President with immediate effect. Please refer any Chessa related queries to Mrs Ellappen.

This hopefully will be handled smoothly and we should all look forward to a united Chessa.

Kindly clarify the comment in your memo below ".... and the vote of no confidence in your presidency has not been overturned".
I also require the following information:
A breakdown of the number of eligible voting members who voted for and against your motion on 14/4/2007, as well the number of abstentions. The breakdown for the eligible voting members that subsequently voted is also required.
I also require, seperately, the identity of the eligible voting members who voted on 14/4/2007 as well as the identity of the subsequent eligible voters. The CHESSA secretary has requested from you the number and identity of the eligible voting members that voted on 14/4/2007.
This information is required by the latest of 1200h on 18/5/2007.
Until these points have been satisfactorily addressed you are instructed not to publicise the vote of no confidence details.

I am shocked, disappointed, aggrieved, astonished, insulted and to say the least ashamed, with the situation as I have experienced it in Chess during the last few weeks. But then I must point out that I have been expecting something like this to happen sooner or later.
What amazes me is the level of animosity that is prevalent in the relationship between CHESSA and SAJCA. This however, from my limited observations, are not a generalisation in the two executives but rather reeks of personal vendettas and agenda’s of which I do not know the origins. This does not mean that the pursuance of these vendettas and agenda’s can be justified in organisations such as CHESSA or SAJCA, as it is not in the interest of the players, their parents or the administrators of the game at large. These practices will surely lead to exactly what we are experiencing at the moment and the prediction of Mr. Bouah that it would result in the Government stepping in to settle the scores and taking over the code’s management is a self-professed prediction.
For the life of me I cannot understand how learned adults can behave in such infantile ways as we have experienced during the last few weeks. If anyone wishes to chastise me for the opinion then please do so, all I ask is that we all step back and have good look at what the hell we are doing to a code that should actually be standing for the opposite of what we are busy with. (We currently are busy with a dangerous confrontational game that neither the administrators, players nor their parents can afford.) Should we not be applying our minds with reasoning and wisdom to rather find a solution that would solve this ideology of “if I cannot convince you I will prosecute you”?
I do not for one moment say that one party is more right than the other, no one at this stage deserve the higher ground as no one has shown that they are deserved occupiers thereof.
We are selecting phrases, sentences and portions of sentences from statements on both sides of the divide and in very unconvincing ways try to use them to either justify certain actions, or to hammer the person involved, or to simply hide the true issue at hand. This to me is not becoming people in the positions that they act in as representatives of others.
All the drama as reflected in the run-up to the council meeting from all participants to the electronic debate and the statements by the chair of CHESSA, the conduct of the Chairman/President and his Executive officer during the said meeting, the scathing content of the official executive reports of both the Chairman/President and his Executive officer, the decision to not face the delegates at the meeting after the motion had been tabled and the gross disrespect that some of the members of the CHESSA executive had displayed at the meeting towards the members of CHESSA as well as the “forced” CODE OF CONDUCT that was adopted in principle but was of no effect until it had been revisited (??), was a clear indication that the Executive, as it was and I presume still is, was not in control of the management of the affairs of the code, and their attempts to strengthen their hands by constant threats of prosecution has not contributed towards a spirit of reconciliation.
As the parent of a very enthusiastic chess player and someone that has been in the chess wars behind the scenes I have the following suggestions to both the CHESSA Executive and all its members:

A decision has to be taken to determine if the situation of the vote of no-confidence is one that can be salvaged or not. If the consensus is that the dispensation as it currently presents itself, is not acceptable, we all should take a decision on either to abdicate the code to the Department of Sport to manage on our behalf or that we vacate our positions and have new election of office bearers to take up the challenge.
That anyone who currently serves on any structures of CHESS at national, provincial or any other level make themselves available for service to the code, with the proviso that any currently serving member or willing member that bears a grudge, hatred, animosity or any ill-feeling towards any other person either address these issues and settle them before availing him/her-self for election or not make themselves available for service at all.
That the constitution is adhered to and that the right to speak freely is honoured in all circumstances, we must be open to true constructive criticism.
That the unselfish work that is being done at ground level by parents and teachers be recognised and that we do not diminish or degrade their work.
That no-one with political aspirations, party or otherwise, be allowed to take part in the functions of the executive as it almost certainly will cloud issues.
That the rule of democracy be applied as it is contained in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as a whole.
Not to conduct ourselves in a discriminatory, racist or sexist manner, e.g - although the Ladies executive, whoever they may be, might not be players cannot be degraded and looked upon as inferior, they still contribute to the development f the game.
Not to allow the person to become bigger than the position, in any portfolio.

If we cannot at least agree on some fundamental ground rules that are even more basic than the constitution of CHESSA, and as set out in the National Constitution of our Country, we cannot even endeavour to try and walk the road of reconciliation and working together.
Before we can get to a point where we can start threatening people with Codes of Conduct, due diligence in financial matters, transparency in selection of players in teams, appointing coaches and managers etc. we need to have respect for each other. Something I do not see in the happenings of the past few weeks.
I am not even going get involved with the debates between individuals and factions regarding their views on certain issues, as the issues are trivial in relation to the underlying rot that is endemic of the whole structure.
If you can fix the problem of transparency, honour, truth, co-operation, goodwill, and faith in what we are doing then these trivial issues will take care of itself.
This was my final sermon on the issue and I wish that we can find a light at the end of the tunnel that would indicate that we will see the sun shine again, because I cannot believe that everyone at that council meeting could have the same love of and for the game but have such different positions on these seemingly trivial issues that they can allow this to happen.

As you all can see I have written the original sermon some time back, but have been reluctant in sending it out, for the reasons that I try to address in the sermon.
We should refrain from fueling the same fire that we are trying to extinguish.
I, however cannot keep my quiet any longer.
I am of the opinion that certain individuals should wake up and smell the coffee, as it seems that the bells have tolled for them and their consistant or persistant and dogged attempts to hold onto what they perceive to be a power base has actually been eroded by their own actions and comments during and after the Council meeting.
The earlier they realise that they should be going quietly the better for all concerned.
What is however a grave concern to me is that we are in May and there is no clear definition on what is going to happen during the rest of the year. We are, I presume, still hosting the Commonwealth Games, seemingly with fragmented leadership in the organising committee Re. e-mail K Jurrius and J Ngubeni in this regard.

That from amongst the people involved, and this could be the most difficult part of the process, we setup a “Bosberaad” not a Camp Staaldraad, with the specific task of plotting within the realm of where we should be at this point in time in relation to where we actually are. This divide between the two poles must then be managed by means of a NEW CHESSA executive that would be free of the politics of the past and that will be driven on a more democratic base on which all portfolios will be driven by subcommittee with its own mandate, targets, budgets and responsibilities.
That we do this a.s.a.p. and not stop wasting precious time that we do not have.
I will avail myself to assist in this process of planning the way forward.

I have a huge problem with every answer to every question always being "to be discussed at the next meeting". This is unsatisfactory and is just deliberate avoidance of the questions. What is the point of having costly meetings when it just delays the process and many of the questions are still not answered? Meetings only take place bi-annually and may not be attended due to non availability, or the transport and accommodation costs (again a way of trying to bypass certain questions, in the hopes that councilors will not be present at all meetings, and the problem will just be dissolved). Do we have to wait 6 months or a year to have a question answered and can one only ask questions if you attend the meeting, as this is not a very productive or effective way of administering any organization? Is this an example of the best way to ulitise funds whether paid for by the individuals or the unions or CHESSA themselves, by limiting queries or discussions to expensive meetings only?
When Francois Wilke started a debate in January 2007, Mr. Ball's comments were that they were not for debate but "would be discussed at the next meeting". These proposals from the debate were added to the agenda of the previous meeting on 14 April 2007, yet were still not discussed, after waiting 3 months, and the meeting was closed with items still on the agenda that had not been discussed. It is also pointless debating issues AFTER the event has already occurred, whatever the outcome of the debate is, as it is the process that is incorrect. By giving an answer "to be discussed at the next meeting" actually means the intention of Mr. Ball is to ignore the issues as by the time the meeting took place it was too late to attend to the queries anyway - just what was intended. There are also limited hours in a day, and not always enough time to discuss all the issues at a meeting, many of which could satisfactorily be clarified months in advance by alternative modern methods other that expensive irregular meetings.
One of the items of concern was the SA Junior Closed and why it was being organized by the Youth Committee who had no experience in organizing such a tournament, and a second item was the selection criteria relating to the Junior Closed. The Junior Closed took place BEFORE the council meeting, yet the relevant questions were asked 3 months prior, and intentionally NEVER discussed, whatever the outcome may have been.
The statement below made by Mr. Ball – “There has never been any question with regards to how CHESSA has used the funds at its disposal” is also not true. GW requested the financials from last year to see in fact how the funds at its disposal were used, and were told “they were given out at the last meeting”. Why then could they not just be re-sent as they were not received by the current representative? When querying why senior Olympiad teams had been FULLY 100% sponsored and Junior teams were not sponsored at all, although the government money was allocated to Junior funding, the answer again was “it will be discussed at the next meeting”. I also asked that question personally at the meeting in Pretoria and was told no money was applied for by the juniors, hence none was allocated to the Junior Olympiad. Should the allocation of funds not have been better split, particularly when it was publically announced at the SA Junior Closed 2006 to a junior only audience that the Olympiad would be sponsored – does this not imply the Junior Olympiad?
I have also heard that the treasurer does not control the cheque book and I find that quite ironic. Is this true? Under the circumstances, one would think CHESSA’s procedures were squeaky clean, and positions were well defined.

Why is this letter not for publication? After all this CHESSA issue is common knowledge out there.
It is not good enough to discuss the minutes at the next council meeting.
Perceptions are being created out there and the minutes as they are at present do not accurately reflect the facts coming out of the 14 April meeting. This minute must be altered now while still fresh in the minds of the councillors that were present.

At no time was the council informed that the financials presented were draft documents, and the mere fact that these documents were put forward for discussion on the agenda indicates to me that they were not. Attaching a bogus auditors report also tells me that they were intended for approval by the council. CHESSA could just have easily had a covering page stating that hese were draft financial documents. I also find it strange that when the issue was raised around the different reporting dates at the meeting that not one member of the CHESSA Exco. Stood up and stated that these were draft documents (perhaps they were not aware of this either). All Mr.Parkin said was that the treasurer was not present and therefore no questions could be answered. He also at that time did not indicate to the council that these financials were drafts only - the council was purposely misled. Your letter now states that the financials are at this moment being prepared for the auditor, Mr. Parkin declared that the financials were at the auditor On the 26 April during the SA Ladies open. Now which is it?

SAJCA may well have been late with their financial but this in itself is not a crime. SAJCA has never tried to mislead anyone. Gauteng West have NOT mismanaged any funds and all public money has been accounted for. We did state clearly at the national council meeting (which you would see if the minutes were correct) that GW are prepared to assist CHESSA with any information they might require should they decide to take the alleged matter further.

(a) if this matter goes further, CHESSA would legally be forced to disclose this document. Failure to disclose this document would discredit you even more.

(b) You should point out to this alleged person that signing a affidavit could open himself up to a charge of purgery and civil claims against him/her if the statements is false or untrue.

We are very happy to note that the position of the CHESSA EXCO. Will soon beknown, however this is like "a reasonable time" can we please have a defineddate on this matter.

This email is not for publication on the Gauteng West, SAJCA or any other website.
I am sure that the secretary has noted your dissatisfaction with the proposed minutes and the matter will be discussed at the next Council Meeting.
The Treasurer will respond to any specific querries that you may have with regards to the financials. The financial report presented at the Council Meeting was a draft one, which was presented by the Treasurer to the Executive the night before. The Treasurer is in the process of completing the arrangements so that the finanacial may be audited. To me, it is quite ironic that you have a problem with the financial report:
Firstly, SAJCA - with whom you clearly seem to be siding - has a history in being very late with its financials (more than 2 years) and CHESSA does not.
Secondly, your own region has had a problem in accounting with regards to funds received. There has never been any question with regards to how CHESSA has used the funds at its disposal. If indeed there is a need for any forensic audit it would seem to be more appropriate for the funds of your own Region as there is a possibility that funds have been misused. The affidavit, signed in Mr Parkin's and my own presence by one of your own members, certainly alleges that funds were misused.
The position of the CHESSA Executive will shortly be publicised.

It has now been more than 10 days since I wrote to the secretary of CHESSA With my report on the minutes of the national council meeting of the 14th April. To this date I have had no response from CHESSA in this regard and once more they are just assuming that the problem is going to go away. I have also not seen any revised minutes of the same meeting.
I have also not had any response from CHESSA with regards to the Financials that where presented to the council at the same meeting and therefore assume that my assumptions are correct and that they are now trying to bury the mistakes.
I therefore now propose that the council calls for a full forensic audit into the financial affairs of CHESSA and that we get to the bottom of this.
I also again call on the two people of the CHESSA Exco. To do the right and best thing for Chess and that is to resign.
The current situation is not what is good for the game and if these people concerned truly have the sport and the players best interest at heart they would step down in order for the betterment of Chess.
It is now time to put the ultimate test of sportsmanship to Mr. Ball and Mr. Parkin.

As a chess parent I am extremely disappointed in the total lack of respect shown by you toward junior chess players.
By now both of you should realise the following:

· Your reputation (as chess administrators) is destroyed.
· Your credibility in the chess community is destroyed.
· You have lost the respect of the majority of the registered chess players, i.e. the juniors

Although the above is the result of your own irresponsibility, I do feel sorry for both of you, as I know that it is a dark moment in your life. However, life must go on and I assure you that there is a life after chess
Please, please do the honourable thing and resign before you inflict more damage to your reputation, to your credibility, to the sport.

It is a huge concern if someone does an audit under a company name that they no longer work for - THIS IS CALLED FRAUD - in most companies and institutions a fireable offence.
And then Bernie Parkin has the cheek to say that SAJCA think they are god to Chess, well Bernie it seems that between yourself and L Ball the two of you are frauds if you can approve this.

This is undoubtedly a feeble attempt by Mr. Ball to try and derail the process of what now seems to be a fait accompli. Please Mr Ball, we have requested you not to involve yourself further in this process and believe it is inappropriate for you to campaign on your own behalf. If you feel that there are no grounds for the vote and that the regions would blindly follow you to the detriment of chess, please think again. We suggest that you do the right thing and in the interest of chess step aside, as requested, and let the process run its course.
Below, for your perusal are some of the concerns and reasons for the vote of no confidence. Also, attached in the previous email are further comments.

I want to clear up some misunderstandings that arose from the CHESSA National Council Meeting in April 2007 as well as some aspects that needed approval from the national council meeting.

The chairman of the meeting Mr Laurence Ball (LB) declared the meeting closed after a motion of no confidence was lodged against himself and the executive director Mr Bernie Parkin. The motion was properly seconded. According to all motions handled at the meeting the motion should have been allowed to be discussed by the meeting and then put to the vote. Mr Ball declared from the “chair” that he was not prepared to accept the motion and then declared a recess of 10 minutes after which he declared the meeting closed. At this time the motion was still open for discussion, the SAJCA report had not been discussed, as well as all the items placed on the agenda by Gauteng West. A meeting is not properly closed until all the items on the agenda have been addressed.

IN ESSENCE IT MEANS THAT THE MEETING WAS NOT PROPERLY CLOSED WITH A PROPOSAL AND SOMEONE TO SECOND THE PROPOSA!!! According to normal meeting procedure the meeting was not closed and Gauteng West did the correct thing by proposing an interim chairperson to take the chair and finish the meeting.
IT IS, THEREFORE, CORRECT ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION, TO ASK FOR YOUR VOTE ON THE MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE.

SAJCA has long been accused of the fact that their financial statements were late etc etc with lots of hints of financial mismanagement etc. SAJCA presented its audited financial statements to the SAJCA AGM in December 2006 as well as to Chessa. When asked at the CHESSA Council meeting if SAJCA’s financials had been presented, Mr Ball said that he thought they had been. When further questioned, it was agreed that the financials were indeed presented and were now in order.
NB !!!! At the CHESSA national council meeting the financial statements of CHESSA were circulated by Mr Bernie Parkin to the meeting with an auditor’s report for approval. At no stage was it mentioned that these were only draft financial statements by the President (Mr Ball) or Mr Parkin. The dates on the financial statements and the auditors report also differed – the one 28 Feb 2007 and the other 31 December 2006. The auditors report was not signed by the auditor.
It thus comes to light that the president and the executive director were trying to mislead the meeting to approve financial statements that were not finalised and not properly audited. THIS SURELY IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO ASK THEM TO RESIGN IF NOTHING ELSE WILL.

The changing of the format of the Junior championships 2006 as well as the decision to reduce the number of players to the World Youth Chess Championships from 3 to 1 was not mentioned at all in either of the reports of the president or the executive director. SURELY SUCH A DRASTIC DECISION SHOULD BE RATIFIED BY THE CHESSA NATIONAL COUNCIL WHO IS THE GOVERNING BODY OF CHESS IS SOUTH AFRICA. ANY DRASTIC DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE EXECUTIVE BOARD MUST BE RATIFIED BY THE NATIONAL COUNCIL MEETING. THIS WAS NOT DONE – IT WAS NOT EVEN ON THE AGENDA OF THE APRIL 2007 NATIONAL COUNCIL MEETING!!!

ARE WE PREPARED TO SIT BACK AND LET THE CURRENT EXECUTIVES SUCH AS MR BALL AND MR PARKIN TAKE OVER CHESS AND MAKE DECISIONS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OR THE CHESS COMMUNITY?

The minutes sent out by CHESSA are a very poor reflection of the events that took place at the meeting. Everyone that was present can testify to this. BUT Mr Ball and Mr Parkin scrutinised the minutes before they was circulated to the members of the national council meeting.
AGAIN THIS UNDERLINES THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AT THE MEETING. ARE WE REALLY PREPARED TO TAKE THIS ABUSE AND EXPLOITATION FROM THE CHESSA EXECUTIVE? WHY CAN’T WE STOP ALL THIS MUDSLINGING AND CONCENTRATE ON OUR MAIN AIM, NAMELY CHESS.
IF ONE IS REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT CHESS IN SOUTH AFRICA, IT IS TIME TO FACE REALITY AND GET RID OF THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEMS IN CHESS AND SUPPORT THE MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE AGAINST MR BALL AND MR PARKIN.
If anyone wants to discuss any of the facts mentioned above I am more than willing to talk to you..

Chris de Jager
Previous Past President SAJCA
Concerned CHESSA Member
082 558 9397

On the 14th April 2007 the CHESSA National council meeting was held at Houghton Primary School.
At this meeting Bernie Parkin handed out to all present a copy of the CHESSA financial reports to be ratified and signed as accepted by the CHESSA president as stated on the document cover sheet.
When the financials came up as an item on the agenda it was contested by the councillor from Platina as the reporting dates were different on the front page. At the top of the page in bold letters it read CHESSA Financials for the year ending 31 December 2006 but further down the covering page it states that the reporting period is for the year ending 28 February 2006.
On the second page we have the so called independent auditor’s report, not on a letter head, unsigned by the auditor with just the auditors name and no other details. At the bottom of the page it is dated 14 April, 2007. How does an auditor audit the books and date the audit report the same day?
At the top of the so called auditors report it talks about the period of the 31 December 2007 and goes on to state that all auditing practises etc. are correct and factual. Two paragraphs further down in the "Auditors Opinion" it refers to the 28 February 2006 as being the reporting period. Now which period is it?
On the Monday morning I investigated the auditing company and traced them to 63 Charl Cillier Street, Boksburg North. I drove out to the auditors with a copy of the CHESSA financial report.
On entering the premises I explained to the receptionist who I was and why I was there. When shown the CHESSA report she burst out laughing and stated that they did not even use that font. I then asked her if there was anyone present who could either confirm or deny whether they had audited these financials to which she replied that only the senior partner Mr. Des Snyman could. On showing the documents to Mr. Snyman he stated emphatically that they did not see or audit the CHESSA books. He did state that it could be Banie van Vollenhoven. I asked him if Banie worked there to which he answered no, and had not for the past 5 years. I thanked him very much and left.
On the following day I phoned Banie on his cell phone at 16h00 and he was driving on his way home. I discussed the matter with him, and he told me that he was present at the CHESSA Exco meeting on the Friday 13 April and that he had told the CHESSA Exco that these financials were draft copies only and that he was not aware of the way they where presented to the council. He also stated the last page, the income and expenditure statement was the most important but that he could not accurately complete it as he was still waiting on info from Bernie Parkin relating to the distribution of the LOTTO Funds. He also made it quite clear to me that he did not control the purse strings or sign the cheques.
On Friday 26 April at the SA Ladies open Mr Parkin mentioned to Lynne van Rensburg that the CHESSA financials were at the auditors. This is the same set of financials that had been handed to the CHESSA council meeting to be approved as audited. On Sunday the 29th April during the SAWCA AGM at Cresta Shopping Centre, Banie arrived for a meeting with Bernie Parkin to discuss the financials, and on speaking to Banie later, he confirmed that the financials were not yet at the auditors.
Personally, I can only draw the following conclusions based on the above:

You have all almost certainly received an email from SAJCA asking you to "vote" on the contents of some minutes oif a meeting that very few Council Representatives attended AFTER the Council Meeting was Closed.
These "other" minutes have no validity and I would request that you refrain from "voting" on the motion(s) contained.
Should SAJCA and Gauteng West - who are the prime movers behind this small minority motion - wish to proceed with any motion then they are free to call for a Special General Meeting, provided the requisite support is obtained.

As a parent of a chess player I would just like to know why Mr Ball and Mr Parkin insist on sending one player per age group when they don't even subsidise the second and third place players. It is no skin of their noses.
I know that Mr Ball and Mr Parkin had mentioned to me personally that the performance of the players overseas is an embarrassment. Do they realise that we do not have the same exposure as the overseas players, and this makes a huge difference.
What do the kids have to play for if this has been taken away from them.

We fully understand and support how our players feel in this matter. It is extremely frustrating for those of us who want to promote the sport to be caught up in such political ramblings. It is precisely for this reason that we are fighting for the future of chess and chess players in this country. To quote an example – at the start of the Nationals with approximately 1000 players, the Executive Director made an announcement that SASCOC had reduced the number of players from 3 to 1 for the World Youth Chess Championships. After further investigation it has been determined that this directive did not come from SASCOC but from the two individuals. There are various other issues that have come to light as well.
Please be aware that we are trying our utmost best to level the playing fields and to ensure that our juniors get a fair deal.

Firstly, thank you very much for your comments, it is very important for us to us to hear from the players and as part of our attempt for transparency and open channels of communication these inputs are invaluable.
We will be placing the official draft minutes of the Chessa Council meeting onto the website very shortly; unfortunately they do not cover the latter part of the meeting. We will also place on the website the comments and corrections to the said minutes for everyone’s perusal. We have already placed the various points of view that we have received and are not selective or only giving you a one sided view. This is an open forum and anyone that has an opinion is welcome to share it, even if their views differ from ours. In fact we welcome guidance from the chess community that we serve.
With all due respect, we have had several advocates, lawyers and other highly learned persons looking into the matter and have had various views on the subject. The one matter where the majority seems to agree, is in the closure of the meeting, most of the legal opinion has made it abundantly clear that the meeting was not closed procedurally. As to the issue around the tabling of the vote prior to the meeting, there is absolutely no agreement. The last question raised by the process is the one around the “inquorate” meeting and this has been addressed by invoking clause 11.8 of the Chessa constitution.
There are a number of reasons for the vote of no confidence, some of which are highlighted in the SAJCA report to the council meeting on the 14th April 2007. We have not listed all of the reasons, as some of them would be detrimental to chess in the long run. One of the main reasons is the miss leading information and autocratic decisions that the two members have been making and passing off as Chessa/SASCOC/Governmental Directives, i.e. the reduction in the number of players that represent South Africa at the World Youth Chess Championships, when these decisions were made without consulting the Chessa Council or even the rest of the Chessa Executive. After consultation with SASCOC it was revealed that they do not dictate the number of players that a Federation sends overseas.
We had hoped that there would be an amicable solution to this problem and have tried to negotiate with the two members but alas this has mounted to nothing. We are aware that there is a council meeting in September and that we could wait until that meeting, but this gives the two members too much time to cause further harm to the workings of the organisation.
Once again, thank you for your input as well the input from others on this matter.

I am an U20 player from Western Province. I find the political state of chess in our country to be disturbing. I would like to see a copy of the full minutes of the meeting containing the vote of no confidence. It would be appreciated, I think, to the entire chess community if both sides of the argument could agree on these complete minutes. Mr Ball, I believe, was wrong to have adjourned the meeting with the vote of no confidence on the table. However according to Advocate Bouah, such a motion had to be put forth 30 days prior to the meeting. Advocate Bouah knows the nature of these things, as he is an advocate.
Mr Parkin was said to have been overheard at a private congregation with Mr Ball and Advocate Bouah saying that no-one would know that adjourning the meeting at that time would be unconstitutional. My question is this: who ʽoverheardʼ this? What side is this person on? Is it a fabrication? Nobody will no the answer to this last question, unfortunately, besides maybe Mr January and others at the meeting. And by the way, why was the vote of no confidence tabled in the first place?
Chess in our country is under fire. Everyone knows that. Everyone has their own views of what is better for the future of chess. For the better of chess, an agreement must be made as soon as possible. Chess juniors are the future senior representatives of our country
Why can't we just all get along for the better of chess, especially junior chess?

COMMENTS PAGE

MAY

APRIL / MAY / JUNE

SAJCA INVOKES CLAUSE 11.8 OF THE CHESSA CONSTITUTION
DETAILS

COMMENTS PAGE

MAY

APRIL / MAY / JUNE

SAJCA INVOKES CLAUSE 11.8 OF THE CHESSA CONSTITUTION DETAILS

SAJCA INVOKES CLAUSE 11.8 OF THE CHESSA CONSTITUTION
DETAILS