Retired all-rounder Saleem Mukuddem has lambasted Bermuda Cricket Board for having been “incompetent and inconsistent” in suspending him for one game after he skipped a team function during the World Cup.

Finally able to break silence after his contract with the Board expired on Sunday, the South African said the decision by the tour disciplinary committee of Reggie Pearman, Lionel Tannock and Gary Fray to ban him for the India game had been unfair — a “gross over-reaction” to what was a “relatively minor” offence.

He also accused them of totally ignoring their own disciplinary procedures outlined in the national team’s code of conduct, stressing he was never given the required “disciplinary interview” to explain his absence from a reception at the British High Commission in Port of Spain on the evening of Saturday, March 17.

A severe breakdown in his relationship with Tannock, the team manager, could also have contributed to the punishment’s harshness and compromised the fairness of the process, he added, pointing to a heated row they had on Saturday morning during which Tannock accused Mukuddem of deliberately undermining his authority.

And the wounds from that argument clearly hadn’t healed by yesterday, with Mukuddem suggesting Tannock had been “out of his depth” at the World Cup having struggled to cope effectively with the many responsibilities imposed upon him.

Mukuddem was Bermuda’s star bowler in Trinidad, recording figures of two for 50 off ten overs against Sri Lanka and three for 19 in an inspired five-over spell against Bangladesh.

He announced his retirement from international cricket immediately after the Bangladesh game on March 26, suggesting the way in which the Board handled the suspension had helped him make up his mind.

“I just cannot stay silent on this because it’s very important that the major organisational weaknesses at the Board don’t affect future players in the same way as they affected me,” he said.

“There were so many things going on behind the scenes which were just so wrong and I firmly believe that the public needs to be made aware of the circumstances surrounding my ban.

“There may well be people out there who believe I deserved to be punished for what I did. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but my priority here is to lay out exactly what happened and let people make up their own minds as to whether the process was fair and consistent, as laid out by the Code of Conduct that the Board themselves drew up.”

According to Mukuddem:

[bul] The players were informed by Tannock on Thursday, March 15 that they had all been invited, along with their wives, to a reception at the British High Commission. Mukuddem claims that at no time was it made clear by Tannock that the event was an “official function” or “mandatory”.

[bul] Both Mukuddem and his wife were invited, but when it became clear that children were not, Mukuddem told Tannock he would not be able to go because he did not want to leave an unknown babysitter with his six-month-old baby boy. He did think about going to the reception alone and leaving his wife back at the hotel, but decided in the end that as the reception didn’t appear to be compulsory, he would rather stay with his wife and child.

[bul] Mukuddem says he told Tannock at around 8.30 a.m. on Saturday of his intentions. He then asked the manager to contact BCB chief executive Neil Speight to make the Board aware of his position. Speight later confirmed to Mukuddem, however, that he never received a call from Tannock and had no knowledge of Mukuddem’s plans to miss the reception.

[bul] It was not until the following afternoon at a pre-game team meeting, Mukuddem said, that he was informed by coach Gus Logie in front of the rest of the squad that he was to be suspended for the India game and fined. Mukuddem still does not know when the disciplinary meeting took place, why he wasn’t informed about it and why he wasn’t given an opportunity to explain himself before any punishment was decided.

“They knew of my concerns about the function first thing Saturday morning, so they had all day to let me know that this was not going to be acceptable and to tell me I would face disciplinary action,” said Mukuddem, whose parents, both of Indian descent, flew in the day before the game to watch their son in action.

“But rather than deal with it in a reasonable way and with common sense, they said absolutely nothing and next thing I know I find out almost 24 hours later at a team meeting that I’ve been suspended.

“The BCB’s draconian methods of over-reacting instead of common sense and reason once again reared its ugly head and convinced me that after the World Cup I did not have to tolerate such incompetence.

“The Board’s own disciplinary procedures clearly state that the aim of the whole process is to be fair and consistent. So why didn’t they follow their own set of rules?

“I didn’t receive a verbal warning as it says I should have done in the Code of Conduct, I didn’t receive a written warning and I was never asked to attend a “disciplinary interview”. All of that is clearly laid out. Why didn’t it happen?

“So not only am I upset with the way in which the Board totally ignored their own rules, I’m disappointed that the BCB felt that what I did deserved the harshest penalty ever handed out to any player during the time I have been involved with the team.

“In all my time with the national team, I’d never missed a training session, missed curfew, turned up late for a meeting, came back drunk after a night out — nothing like that.

“And then on the eve of one of the biggest games Bermuda’s ever been involved in, they decide I deserve to be suspended for what was at the end of the day a relatively minor offence.”

The Leg Trappers-bound accountant also claimed — without naming names — that there were other disciplinary offences committed during the World Cup which either went unpunished or were dealt with far more leniently than his case.

And he argued that the reason why the BCB were so evasive when asked for a full explanation of his suspension by The Royal Gazette was because the whole process was fundamentally “disorganised and unprofessional”.

“Curfews were broken on tour, which if you look at our Code of Conduct for the tournament is meant to mean an automatic one-game ban,” he said.

“But I was the only one who received that level of punishment. Why, I don’t know, but I cannot help but wonder if it had been any other member of the team, whether the situation would have been handled very differently by the management. I have my suspicions about that.

“But they were so cloak and dagger about the whole thing from the very beginning. Look at how transparent the England management were about (Andrew) Flintoff’s suspension and contrast that with how evasive Reggie Pearman was when asked about my suspension.

“They really need to look closely at how the bigger teams handle disciplinary matters — though one thing that might prevent them from being transparent is that they have serious flaws in their organisation.

“And as we move forward and try to re-qualify for the next World Cup they have a responsibility to get their house in order because at the moment it’s all over the place.”

Asked for this thoughts on the team manager, meanwhile, Mukuddem refused to pull any punches.

“I do understand that he tried his best, but it became very apparent at the World Cup that he was in way over his head,” he said.

“There is a lot of pressure on team managers at a big tournament like that and unfortunately he did not handle it very well and he began to take his frustrations out on his players.

“He definitely had good intentions at first and the players liked him, but as the pressure built up and he became more and more flustered, it began to affect his performance.”

A spokesman for Bermuda Cricket Board said yesterday the BCB may respond to Mukuddem’s comments after reading today’s article.