SSFL 2024: The St Benedict’s case: three parties made different rulings on Garcia—and none followed the Constitution

Article 16 of the Secondary Schools Football League (SSFL) Constitution explains the criteria for eligibility in its competitions.

“Before students can be accepted by the League to be registered as players to represent any team playing in the League,” states the Constitution, “the following criteria must be fulfilled:

“Students must be duly registered, according to the existing rules and regulations of the Ministry of Education and on the official roll of the school presenting the team.

“These students must attend classes at that school during normal school hours.”

The Constitution then spelt out the price for violating that rule:

Penalty for Infringement: Suspension of the school from further competition in the division for the remainder of the season.

Suspension means automatic relegation from the division, as was the case with East Zone Championship team Manzanilla Secondary in 2022.

St Benedict’s College captain Derrel Garcia—like Manzanilla midfielder Keshawn Diaz, two years ago—was also not a bonafide student when principal Gregory Quan Kep registered him to play football for the school on 30 August 2024.

Garcia had not attended school in 14 months at that point and was abroad during much of that period pursuing a football opportunity.

The skilful attacker still had not returned to class at St Benedict’s on Wednesday 2 October, when coach Randolph Boyce, also the Trinidad and Tobago Men’s National Under-20 Team head coach, not only played Garcia against San Juan North Secondary, but gave him the captain’s armband—which was previously worn by midfielder Josiah Ochoa.

Likewise, on Saturday 5 October and Monday 7 October, Garcia continued to represent the La Romaine Lions against Fatima College and St Anthony’s College despite being, effectively, a non-student.

Curiously, Garcia’s name, according to information received by the SSFL Disciplinary Committee, was entered into the school roll on 2 October. However, the Ministry of Education confirmed that the fourth form student did not attend school until 8 October.

(St Benedict’s were also deducted three points for using Garcia against Queen’s Royal College on Wednesday 9 October as, although he attended school for the first time on the previous day, there was presumably no 72-hour waiting period after he supposedly reacquired his status as a student.)

So why did St Benedict’s not, like Manzanilla Secondary, pay the penalty of suspension?

Here, sports attorney Tyrone Marcus appears to have played a crucial role.

For context, on Saturday 16 November, a three-member Disciplinary Committee ruled on Benedict’s use of Garcia and forwarded their verdict to the SSFL executive committee, headed by president Merere Gonzales.

However, that ruling was never made public. Instead, on Tuesday 19 November, the SSFL hired Marcus to “help”—a decision taken unilaterally by the executive, and not requested by the Disciplinary Committee members.

The Disciplinary Committee and Marcus both arrived at the virtually undeniable conclusion that St Benedict’s used an improper player. But, notably, the Committee leaned heavily on the sports attorney when it came to the matter of sentencing and repeated his reasoning verbatim.

Penalty for Infringement: Suspension of the school from further competition in the division for the remainder of the season.

Well, Marcus suggested that this wording was vague.

“The language of the provision is ambiguous as to whether this is a mandatory or discretionary penalty,” stated Marcus, in his legal opinion to the SSFL. “It says neither ‘may’ nor ‘shall’.

“The relevant sentence begins with the noun ‘suspension’ rather than the verb from which would have said whether the League ‘may suspend’ or ‘shall suspend’.”

Marcus then pointed to article 16.4(c), which deals with student-athletes who are repeating sixth form. The Constitution says such students must satisfy certain criteria from the credentials committee to be eligible.

If they play without satisfying the credentials committee, the SSFL gives the penalty as: loss of points or even suspension from further participation in the league for the remainder of the season, as the Disciplinary Committee may decide.

“Here, suspension appears to be discretionary rather than mandatory,” stated Marcus. “Put another way, the loss of points will surely occur with the possibility of suspension as an additional punishment.”

Likewise, the attorney noted that the penalties for not following a 72-hour waiting period between registration and playing, or using an overage player all carry the penalty of point deduction rather than suspension.

Should schools face firmer penalties for fielding non-students (or at least students who do not attend school) as opposed to using a player before the 72-hour waiting period after his registration?

Marcus did not think so.

“At face value, a suspension for the remainder of the season not only contradicts the consistency of the penalties identified in other parts of Article 16 but also seems disproportionate,” stated Marcus. “The proportionality principle is a well-established legal principle and again guidance can be gleaned from cases decided at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.”

He then quoted from a CAS ruling:

“The principle of proportionality implies there must be a reasonable balance between the nature of the misconduct and the sanction.

“In order to be respected, the principle of proportionality requires that (i) the measure taken by the governing body is capable of achieving the envisaged goal, (ii) the measure taken by the governing body is necessary to reach the envisaged goal, and (iii) the constraints which the affected person will suffer as a consequence of the measure are justified by the overall interest to achieve the envisaged goal.

“In other words, to be proportionate a measure must not exceed what is reasonably required in the search of the justifiable aim.”

And, for Marcus, the SSFL threatening to throw out a school who uses a non-student in a schools’ competition is disproportionate.

He used the number of games played by Garcia before he attended school (three) as a factor in his decision. And he suggested that the Disciplinary Committee ignore the penalty prescribed by the Constitution for using a non-student—or at least he disagreed with how it was construed—and suggested they use a lesser charge instead.

“It appears that Garcia was ineligible to play in three matches in which he participated,” stated the attorney. “Using a purposive rather than a literal interpretation of the Constitution, the penalty available to the Disciplinary Committee is a loss of points for each of the games in which Garcia played while ineligible.

“A purposive interpretation looks at Article 16 and the Constitution as a whole, while a literal interpretation takes a stricter approach that examines the specific words themselves.

“The purposive approach helps to clarify any apparent inconsistencies in the available sanctions.”

Marcus, following on his case for a purposive approach, then suggested punishment for St Benedict’s.

“Should the Disciplinary Committee adopt a purposive approach to interpreting the Constitution then the applicable penalty for St Benedict’s, if found to be in breach, would be a deduction of nine points from the total accumulated by them at the end of the league phase of the 2024 competition,” he stated.

“Since Garcia’s asserted ineligibility arose from registration criteria and not age criteria, based on the current wording of Article 16, no points can be awarded to the three opposing teams […] that were affected by Garcia’s improper presence on the field of play.”

The SSFL Disciplinary Committee, which comprised Kurt Harry, Laurence Seepersad, and Adesh Dwarika, found that St Benedict’s College:

• Submitted a registration list which included Derrel Garcia, knowing that he was not attending classes and that he was not in physical attendance at the school at the time;
• Uploaded information for Derrel Garcia […] with an incorrect birth paper;
• Played Derrel Garcia […] knowing that he was not attending classes at the time;
• Never deregistered as a student at St Benedict’s;
• Did not follow the expected protocol in forwarding a request for leave of absence or reinstatement for Garcia to the school supervisor;
• Entered Garcia’s name on the school’s roll on 2 October 2024, although he first attended school that term on Tuesday 8 October 2024.

A key component of the Garcia probe was whether the teenager was considered a bonafide student by the Ministry of Education. The school supervisors who investigated the matter declared that all students need to be reinstated once they miss an entire school term—and Garcia missed three.

And the supervisors suggested that Quan Kep, for his conduct in failing to advise the ministry on Garcia’s withdrawal from school and subsequent appearance in form four (despite missing his entire third form year), should be suspended from duties and investigated for breaches of Regulations 62, 77(1)(b)(d) and 77(2)(e)(f)(g) of the Education (Teaching Service) (Amendment) Regulations 2000.

However, acting chief education officer Aaron Ramrattan was far more nonchalant on the matter of Quan Kep’s lack of communication with the Ministry of Education.

And Ramrattan refused to give a straight answer when asked, by SSFL general secretary Azaad Khan, whether Garcia was a bonafide student.

“For the academic year September 2023 to July 2024, he was absent for the entire period,” Ramrattan wrote, on 7 November 2024. “[…] Derrel Garcia resumed attendance at St Benedict’s College on 8 October 2024, as verified from the attendance register at the school.”

Two days later, Ramrattan added:

• Derrel Garcia was never deregistered as a student at St Benedict’s College as his name was not struck off the attendance register;
• The principal of St Benedict’s College was informed of Mr Garcia’s leave of absence;
• The parents followed expected protocols by requesting a leave of absence from the principal of St Benedict’s for their son;
• The student’s parents applied for his reinstatement on 25 September 2024, before he participated in any games;
• The expected protocol at the Ministry of Education is that any request by a student for a leave of absence or reinstatement will be forwarded to the school supervisor for approval. This information was not forwarded to the school supervisor.

Marcus interpreted Ramrattan’s letter to mean that Garcia was a valid student—at least from his return to school on 8 October.

“While there were apparent omissions with regard to St Benedict’s communication with the school supervisor concerning Garcia’s return to school,” stated Marcus, “this second letter identified that Garcia was never deregistered as a student. His absence did not nullify his registration status in the Ministry’s eyes.”

Another issue went unanswered. Since Garcia was not an active student when St Benedict’s registered him on 30 August, and the player was never registered again to play in the 2024 competition—is he able to properly play for his school on credentials received before he was a bonafide student?

It is a question that did not appear to have been raised by either the SSFL executive, the disciplinary committee or the sports attorney.

Marcus’ suggested punishment would have seen St Benedict’s drop to third place on 32 points, behind Fatima College and Presentation College (San Fernando) (both 35 points).

Fatima would have won the title on goal differential.

The Disciplinary Committee suggested a point deduction but also awarded points to the teams who faced Garcia before he attended school. It meant that the La Romaine Lions would drop to fourth behind St Anthony’s College (33 points) while Fatima would move three points clear at the top (with 38 points).

The SSFL executive made another change to the standings. They also gave three points to QRC, as they reasoned that there should be a 72-hour waiting period before Garcia’s first game after he became a student.

The 72-hour waiting period, incidentally, is used after a player is registered. And Garcia was not re-registered.

So, with no stated justification, it seemed to be a rule plucked from thin air by the Gonzales-led executive.

The adjusted point tally, as a result of the Executive’s input, saw QRC leapfrog Naparima College, as they moved from seventh to sixth place.

And there ends the 2024 SSFL Premier Division season, barring an appeal by St Benedict’s.

Gonzales and his executive, which includes South Zone chair Essiel Seecharan, might have had a word with St Benedict’s management on 30 August when they noted that the school registered a high-profile player who was known to have left the country.

They might have checked into the issue too on 2 October when Garcia returned to the playing fields, or on 5 October when former school teacher and ex-TTFA technical committee chair Keith Look Loy queried whether the right procedure was followed.

And after Ramrattan’s letters on 7 and 9 November, why did it still take until 14 November for the SSFL Disciplinary Committee to rule?

Marcus gave his own legal opinion on 18 December with the Disciplinary Committee adjusting its ruling on Christmas Eve. It took six more days for the SSFL to declare that decision.

In the end, Fatima, who sacked their head coach Hutson Charles on Saturday 7 December, are the champions.

It is unlikely that anyone feels like celebrating.