As legal clouds gather over West Indies cricket, the President of Cricket West Indies (CWI), Dr. Kishore Shallow, is standing firm at the crease.
Unshaken by the legal challenge launched by Guyana Harpy Eagles players Veerasammy Permaul and Kevlon Anderson, Dr. Shallow is projecting confidence in CWI’s case and its disciplinary protocols.
Last month, Permaul and Anderson filed a formal application in the High Court of Guyana, contesting Level 2 ball-tampering charges levied during their final-round clash against the Trinidad and Tobago Red Force in the recently concluded West Indies Championship. The charges, and resulting penalties, were fiercely opposed by the Guyana Cricket Board (GCB), which publicly criticized the actions of the match officials.
Despite the brewing storm, Shallow believes CWI’s position is rock solid.
“From CWI’s perspective on this particular matter, we believe it is done and dusted,” Shallow asserted during an appearance on WESN TV’s Face of Sports. “The players admitted, accepted the responsibility after the charges were laid against them, they signed and we moved on.”
Signed, sealed, settled?
According to Dr. Shallow, the key element in the board’s defense lies in the players’ own written admission.
“At this point we are proceeding with what is before us in black and white, which is that the players signed,” he said. “And until we see something different, something in writing from the players, then we will change our position. But for right now, we have accepted the position of the players, which is that they accepted the charges and the penalties.”
In short, the president believes the matter was officially closed the moment the players signed the disciplinary documents acknowledging their responsibility.
Not personal, just procedural
While tensions between the CWI and GCB have surfaced in the past, Shallow dismissed any notion that the court action was a personal attack or part of a wider political struggle.
“I’ve spoken to the Guyana Cricket Board and… I don’t think it is anything personal,” he explained. “They are just seeking clarity and testing the processes and the systems of CWI and that is fine, I believe.”
Rather than resist the scrutiny, Shallow welcomes it—seeing the court action as a test of CWI’s institutional integrity and resilience.
Trial by fire—or opportunity to fortify
In Shallow’s view, the legal challenge isn’t a threat, but an opportunity to reinforce CWI’s governance and disciplinary architecture.
“What we have to do at CWI is to show that our systems and our processes are robust enough to withstand any kind of scrutiny from the public or even from the court,” he said.
“It happens everywhere, and we just have to embrace it, but it gives us an opportunity to strengthen our processes.”
Whether the court agrees remains to be seen. But for now, Dr. Shallow remains unfazed, anchored by what he views as a clear paper trail and a fair disciplinary process.
