Cricket: Howard veto hard to accept - Vaughan

John Howard. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Disappointing, disturbing, hard to stomach - that's just three of the terms used by New Zealand Cricket chief executive Justin Vaughan to describe the ICC's rejection of former Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

Vaughan is attending the International Cricket Council's annual conference in Singapore and had spent the past 24 hours digesting the fact New Zealand Cricket and Cricket Australia's joint nomination of Howard for ICC president had been vetoed by the executive board.

"We spent such a long time developing a process and going through a rigorous interview and selection process. We came to the conclusion that John Howard was the best man for the job," Vaughan said.

"Then to see the ICC, really through no process, to simply say he's unacceptable, to give no basis behind their decision other than to say it's their right to make it, it's disappointing on one hand, disturbing on the other.

"We're really proud of our governance structures and the processes we go through around making decisions, but obviously the ICC decision-making process is a little different."

Vaughan said NZC and CA needed to take time out "to let the dust settle" before deciding their next move. They have been asked to renominate by the end of August.

Howard yesterday said he was still committed to becoming president.

"I'm still the nomination of New Zealand and Australia," he said. "I will not be withdrawing."

There is a chance the two boards could dig their toes in and put Howard's name forward again, although Vaughan said "the position of the ICC board was made pretty clear".

Howard, who had a reputation as a divisive political operator, was never going to be a universally popular nomination and Vaughan conceded they may have been naive in expecting the ICC's powerful Asian bloc to accept him.

"It's easy to say that in hindsight and bearing in mind the governance model under which the ICC operates, perhaps [that's] right. Obviously the approach we took was to say 'what is in the best interests of the ICC?' We came to the conclusion John Howard was the best man for the job.

"But the ICC model is different and perhaps it is more of a popularity contest than who is actually the best man for the job.

"The disturbing element is that if there was a process or certain criteria where they felt this person didn't match up, that's fine, but to make a decision and refuse to give the basis behind the decision is the thing that is really hard to stomach."

Vaughan said a strong message needed to be sent to the ICC that the political twist was "unacceptable".

There was a feeling that NZC had been railroaded into accepting Howard's nomination after originally putting forward long-time cricket administrator Sir John Anderson, but Vaughan said there would be no "I-told-you-so" coming from his board.

"We then went into a joint process with Cricket Australia and came to the conclusion that although there were two outstanding candidates, Howard had certain advantages."

Last night the chairmen of the two boards, Australia's Jack Clarke and Alan Isaac, released a joint statement lamenting the ICC executive's decision.

"We jointly nominated Mr Howard ... as he possesses significant leadership and administrative skills. We believe cricket needs to continue to seek excellence and dispassionate independence in the game's global governance," they said. "We are deeply disappointed by the position taken."

Former ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed, who left in 2008, yesterday wrote a scathing column attacking world cricket's governing body.

"Howard has been rejected because his appointment would provide ICC with strong leadership that would thwart the ambitions of several current administrators to downgrade and devalue the role of the ICC," Speed wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald.

"The ICC board is as political as any political party. The countries that voted him down want a compliant figurehead who will do their bidding."

Speed said Australia and New Zealand should refuse to put forward another nominee.