By Ishmail Saidu Kanu, Esq.
Indeed, what a week! The issues surrounding our country’s football never amaze me anymore. The National Sports Authority (NSA) letter abdicating responsibility to pay Leone Stars’ technical team on the grounds of their unimpressive performance, Dididor’s notoriety of confronting match officials, the SLFA press release on a purported letter from the football world’s governing body, and SLFA’s leave to appeal Justice Ganda’s ruling in their legal battle with Moyamba District Football Association (MDFA) all together provide a whole dossier worth discussing. By way of disclosure, the issues examined herein are primarily based on discussions I am privy to on various social media platforms.
I have been interested in the Leone Stars’ technical team issue. Unfortunately, I am not seized of the contract between the parties and, as such, would speak to general issues involving contracts. I understand that the NSA is responsible for paying the technical team, but I would assume that the contract is between SLFA and Leone Stars’ technical team, as per general practice. If this were the case, a valid contract would still exist between SLFA and Leone Stars’ technical team, irrespective of NSA’s letter based on the doctrine of privity.
This doctrine states that the legal relationship between the parties to a contract is exclusive to them. Subject to exceptions, only those privy to a contract can participate in the benefits and bear its burdens. If the NSA is not privy to that contract, although they are responsible for paying the technical team, they cannot ‘terminate’ it, and whatever reasons preferred are immaterial. I am told that the NSA’s letter is premised on the technical team’s underwhelming performance during the recent AFCON qualifiers. However, stopping the technical team’s remuneration without any severance package only leaves SLFA legally vulnerable as a party to the contract. Therefore, they should act quickly to remedy the problem and avoid another potential litigation.
My other interest is Dididor’s notoriety, which, unfortunately, is nothing new. In recent years, the frequency of controversies involving him during Premier League matches has become one of the hallmarks of his character. They say, to whom much is given, much is expected. Dididor is a senior football administrator and a lawyer. Sadly, even if provoked, his recent public behaviors leave much to be desired. As a football administrator, he should set the highest ethical standards, and belonging to arguably the noblest of professions further raises the bar. Being a usual suspect, especially in inglorious situations, undoubtedly leaves a scar on the reputation of someone whose name carries the suffix “Esq.”
Something should be done urgently to restore sanity in our game. The current Premier League legal regime is inadequate; the maximum six-match ban and/or fine handed down by the Board lack the mojo to deter culprits. Stricter laws must be adopted to help dissuade hooligans masquerading as football officials from undermining the integrity of the game. In the meantime, I would suggest that SLFA refer repeat offenders to the relevant judicial bodies when duly constituted to impose sterner sanctions on recidivists, including banning them for years from the game. Such action will help curb recidivism, thereby upholding the integrity of the game.
Another issue of note is the Press Release from SLFA, purportedly emanating from a letter from FIFA. The release expresses concern about the ongoing legal battle and infers the country’s potential suspension. The FIFA suspension cliché has been overplayed for a long time, and football enthusiasts are getting used to it. We have been there as a country before; hell did not break loose, nor would it break loose now. This intimidation tactic will not work; even if the heavens fall, the right thing must be done!
It is also ill-advised to release a presser while being seized of the letter from FIFA; it makes the act suspect. The signed FIFA letter, without more, would have carried more weight – like from the horse’s mouth. In other words, rather than trying to interpret or give meaning to the letter, a simple verbatim publication of the FIFA letter would have SLFA the convoluted explanation in the presser and left readers to appreciate the contents and conclude themselves. More striking is that the release does not have any verbatim quote from the FIFA letter, further undermining its assertions.
Be that as it may, it would be implausible for FIFA to ban a Federation simply because a member seeks statutory compliance in an “ordinary court” where there are no duly constituted independent bodies. Doing this would undermine good governance and risk recklessly opening the floodgates of statute breaches within Member Associations.
Lastly, I have seen an application from SLFA seeking leave to appeal Justice Ganda’s December 23, 2024 decision. The thrust of the appeal can be grouped as capacity, jurisdiction, parties’ autonomy, and recourse to ordinary courts. The relief sought includes setting aside Justice Ganda’s decision, striking out the action brought by MDFA, ordering MDFA to seek redress through the judicial bodies, and holding Congress.
Far from being contemptuous, this action only delays the inevitable, even if an appeal is lodged with the Supreme Court. As stated in my previous piece, a zero-sum legal battle risks further dividing the football fraternity, and reconciling it would be complicated, if not impossible, in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, let the relevant stakeholders put aside their egos and amicably resolve this matter out-of-court in the interest of the beautiful game that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of our countrymen and women enjoy following. Let the EXCOs take the lead to meet, discuss, and set a new date for Congress as quickly as possible. In doing so, history will be kind to them, for to do otherwise will leave an indelible scar on their conscience. May common sense prevail!
