Sri Lanka Cricket Board’s (SLC) controversial CEO Ashley De Silva’s participation in the ongoing International Cricket Council (ICC) meeting in Singapore has put serious questions against the Cricket’s governing body. There is a harassment case going on against Ashley De Silva in Sri Lanka, even then the ICC has allowed him to represent SLC in the meeting!
The ICC meeting is currently taking place in Singapore.
Interestingly, just last week, the CEO of most powerful cricket board BCCI Rahul Johri, Who is facing allegations of sexual harassment, was forced to pull out of the ICC meeting after the Committee Of Administrators turned down his request for more time to explain the charges.
However, SLC didn’t take any sort of action against Ashley De Silva, against whom a harassment case has been in the court since last one year.
More shockingly, It seems that the SLC has kept ICC in dark about Ashley De Silva’s ongoing case, thus the cricket governing body is unaware about the seriousness of the charges.
Interestingly, in the wake of allegations of sexual misconduct against BCCI CEO Rahul Johri, the ICC, on Tuesday, has decided to take action against the offenders with its new proposal.
The international governing council is all set to put forth an example to others by proposing a move to bar players, team officials, umpires, journalists and vendors accused of sexual harassment to take part in any tournament or enter the stadium.
If accepted, the proposal would bar any player, official or a vendor associated with a team, facing any sexual allegations from attending games at ICC-conducted tournaments. An ICC source revealed that the move is solely aimed at protecting women’s rights and making workplace free of sexual harassment.
It is noteworthy that a former SLC employee has lodged a case against Ashley De Silva and the board. Ashley De Silva has been trying hard to avoid the Court process by either giving false medical reports, prepared by the wife of SLC HR manager Dananjaya Wijesinghe, or producing false documents, according to that former lady employee.
Not only this, a former lady marketing manager and former legal officer’s employment contracts were also not extended due to some mysterious reasons.
