WPCA says it has discretion, supported by a Constitutional Clause, a GBV Statement and a Missing Women’s Committee

There are press releases that explain something, and then there are press releases that leave you staring at the screen wondering: WTF are you actually saying? The Western Province Cricket Association’s latest statement on Tristan Perez falls rather comfortably into the second category. Following the controversy around Perez, who is facing a murder charge in connection with the death of Elana Brooke, who was let go of by his former club Claremont Cricket Club, moved to train with Pollsmoor Cricket Club, and later was confirmed to have “joined” Blue Bells Cricket Club for the 26/27 Cricket season which later triggered a damning social media post by Women 4 Change and the publics reaction following that post, yesterday, 8 October 2026, WPCA issued a “clarifying” statement that: Perez had apparently not been registered to play in any WPCA competition formats, despite the Association being aware of his intention to seek membership. Blue Bells Cricket Club has since decided not to grant him membership and published a statement of their own. So far, that is what seems to be clear. But then WPCA takes us on their constitutional roadshow, reminding everyone that while its by-laws, playing conditions and Code of Behaviour DO NOT specifically prohibit someone facing pending criminal proceedings from playing, the Association has discretionary powers relating to the registration and eligibility of players. And that is where the questions should begin. Because if WPCA has discretion when the rules do not specifically say no, what exactly informs that discretion? Who exercises it? What threshold is applied? And, perhaps most importantly, when did WPCA actually exercise it in this particular case?

The distinction between being aware of something and taking institutional action is important here, if the organisation isnt running like a “spaza shop“, surely institutional action should have been in place prior to Women For Change published their post. Western Province Cricket Association says it knew Perez intended to seek membership, but also says he was never registered to play under its jurisdiction, that leaves a fairly significant gap in the middle of the story. Did WPCA assess the situation when it became aware of his intention to join Blue Bells? Did it determine that there was nothing in its rules preventing registration and therefore leave the matter entirely to the club? Did it consider using the discretionary powers it is now highlighting? Or is this statement, issued after the public scrutiny, while the Association’s way of establishing that it could have acted had registration proceeded is murky…. These aren’t semantic questions.

They speak directly to governance, WPCA is the custodian of cricket across the Cape Metropole and publicly describes its role as promoting access and opportunity across communities while building “robust structures” and strong stakeholder relationships, language thats familiar to this platform from a public relations front and organisational language. So if the Association wants to rely on discretionary authority rather than a specific rule, then wouldn’t you agree that cricket’s stakeholders are eligible to understand the framework behind that discretion?. What constitutes an institutional risk? What constitutes a safeguarding concern? Does the same standard apply to every player, coach, administrator and club? And where is that standard documented?

Then there is the rather extraordinary “by the way” in this statement: GBV and femicide. Western Province Cricket Association says it shares concerns about the prevalence of gender-based violence and femicide and recognises the responsibility of sporting organisations to contribute to safer communities. Good. But TINAR has spent enough time writing about and looking at Western Province Cricket Association to know that women in this ecosystem should not and can not simply be introduced into an institutional statement when the subject becomes politically or reputationally uncomfortable only to then disappear when the immediate controversy does. With the consideration that some may say this following statement may “bring the company into disrepute“, WPCA does have a history of neglecting certain women within the eco-system, (not all women for sure) but sometimes neglecting women playing at professional and club level, other times women within the wider community of their very own ecosystem, and if you visit their website a few times a month, you can see its own current c suit administrative cricket structures lack representation. We can say that they feature women’s competitions, and its constitution even recognises a Women’s Representative connected to the Western Province Women’s Cricketers’ Association, this all on paper looks gleeming. But where, exactly, is the institutional machinery responsible for the women WPCA says it is protecting? Where is the functioning women’s committee? Where is the visible safeguarding structure for female players? Where are the mechanisms for women working in cricket as administrators, club chairs, managers, players coaches and officials to raise concerns and have those concerns acted upon? What happens when the problem isn’t a headline involving a murder charge, but the quieter forms of exclusion, intimidation, discrimination, those insidious occurrences that are well hidden within communities of a male domimcated eco-system, harassment or that institutional protectionism that women can encounter inside sporting structures? It is difficult to take a newly inserted reference to GBV and femicide at face value without asking what WPCA has actually built to address the issue when there isn’t a national media spotlight on it.

And this is why the Perez matter should not be reduced to the question of whether an accused person should be allowed to play cricket. The criminal justice system has its own process, and Perez remains presumed innocent unless convicted, the sporting institution has a different question to answer: what responsibilities does it have when deciding who enters and participates in its environment while serious criminal proceedings are pending? … Other sporting bodies have increasingly been forced to confront the difference between declaring somebody guilty and making a temporary safeguarding decision. Women For Change has explicitly raised that distinction in this matter, calling for sporting institutions to have clearer safeguarding measures for serious allegations involving GBV and femicide. This is also outside the gripe I already have with sporting bodies not putting men at the forefront of anti-GBV initiatives, but thats a conversation for another day. For now, WPCA’s response, with all the lagal jargon, does not give us a safeguarding policy. It gives us discretion. So where are the guidelines governing that discretion? Is there a written safeguarding framework? Is there an independent person or committee assessing these matters? Can a club’s decision be overridden by WPCA? Can WPCA refuse registration even when a club wants to accept someone? What happens when the allegation concerns violence against a woman who herself has a relationship with the cricket community? / Of not. And does WPCA’s obligation to create a safe sporting environment begin only once a court has established criminal guilt, or when the public reacts?

Perhaps the most revealing thing about this statement, is not what it says about Tristan Perez, but what it tells us about WPCA’s understanding of institutional power. The Association has effectively told the public that its rules do not cover everything, but its Constitution gives it discretion to decide what happens in matters of registration and eligibility. That is a considerable power. And power without transparency is precisely where institutional accountability becomes necessary. WPCA has recently spoken publicly about building robust structures, strong stakeholder relationships and a cricket environment that includes all communities. So this platforms question is simple: what does that actually look like when the situation becomes difficult? Not when the cameras are at Newlands. Not when a new commercial partnership is announced. Not when a women’s team wins a trophy. But when the institution has to decide what its values mean in practice. If WPCA wants to invoke GBV and femicide as part of its institutional responsibility, then it should be prepared to explain how that responsibility operates beyond this one case, for the women who play the game, the women who administer it, the women who manage clubs, the women who support the game and the wider female community that has every right to expect cricket to be a safe sporting environment. The question isn’t simply whether WPCA has the discretion to act. The question is whether it has the structures, consistency and institutional courage to use that discretion responsibly.