The Goa Cricket Association’s Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman has suspended Prashant Kakode from the GCA Managing Committee with immediate effect, citing an “intractable” conflict of interest arising from his son’s active playing career. While rejecting a plea to bar Prashant Kakode’s son, Manish Kakode, from GCA team selection, the Ombudsman made it clear that no finding of wrongdoing, improper selection or lack of merit was established against Manish. The order stems from a complaint filed by former cricketer Sudin Vinayak Kamat, who alleged that the official breached Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) conflict-of-interest rules—applicable to the GCA under Clause 23 of its constitution—after his son represented Goa’s Under-23 side and was added to the state’s Ranji Trophy camp while the father held a voting seat on the association’s governing body. Holding that transparency in sports administration is paramount, the Ombudsman ruled that the member violated Regulation 38(2) of the BCCI rules by failing to submit a written declaration within 15 days of assuming office on October 27, 2025. The defence argued that the official had no role in selecting squads, noting that selectors were appointed before his induction and that player selection falls strictly under the General Body’s purview. Counsel for the official also contended that any potential issue was at most “tractable” and could be resolved through recusal. Rejecting these contentions, the Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman emphasized that conflict-of-interest regulations cover not just formal selection committees but also broader “governance and management”. The Ombudsman noted that Managing Committee members deliberate and vote on player welfare, camps, team logistics and cricket operations—matters that directly or indirectly affect active players. “The conflict framework is preventive in nature and it does not require the complainant first to prove an actual intervention in selection, financial gain or a completed act of favouritism,” the Ombudsman observed. The Ombudsman evaluated whether the conflict could be resolved through recusal under the regulations but classified the situation as “intractable”. The Ethics Officer-cum-Ombudsman reasoned that because the Apex Council regularly oversees ongoing cricket administration, piecemeal recusal whenever the player’s name or team arose would be unworkable. Selective abstention would still leave the official involved in deliberations and general cricket policy shaping his son’s environment. Consequently, the Ombudsman invoked powers under the regulations to suspend the member forthwith from all Apex Council functions and debar him from participating in association meetings and decisions. The GCA was directed to seek a fresh nominee from the ICA and forward a copy of the order to the players’ body within seven days. Crucially, the Ombudsman dismissed complainant Vinayak Kamat’s prayer seeking a directive to bar Manish Kakode from GCA team selection. The order made it clear that no finding of wrongdoing, improper selection or lack of merit was established against Manish Kakode, who was not a party to the proceedings. The ruling underlined that nothing in the verdict should be construed as restricting the cricketer’s career or opportunities, noting that selections must rest solely on individual merit. Widening the scope to ensure compliance across the board, the Ombudsman directed the GCA Secretary to issue a formal notice requiring all association officials and committee members who have not yet submitted mandatory conflict-of-interest declarations under the regulations to do so within 15 days, warning that failure to comply would invite disciplinary or suo motu action.