Asante Kotoko’s application for a review of the decision of the Appeals Committee delivered on April 16, 2015 has been dismissed.
In its decision, the Appeals Committee set aside the decision of the Disciplinary Committee which declared Berekum Chelsea as having forfeited their First Capital Plus Premier League match with Kotoko and other clubs for failing to pay a debt owed West Africa Football Academy (WAFA).
DECISION 1. This is an application for review of the decision of the Appeals Committee (AC) dated 16th April, 2015. By that decision, the AC set aside the decision of the Disciplinary Committee (DC) which declared the respondents as having forfeited their First Capital Plus League match with the applicants and other clubs for failing to pay a debt owed West Africa Football Academy (WAFA).
Grounds of Application
2. The grounds of the instant application as contained in the Statement of Case of the applicants are (i) lack of quorum and ii) citation of wrong rule. We shall consider these grounds as follows:
i. Lack of Quorum Under this ground the applicants submitted that: “Mr. KwameTakyi declined participation in the case. The Appeal Committee therefore lack jurisdiction and any decision taken without the right quorum rendered the decision a nullity. Article 42.4 of the GFA Statutes provides that ‘The Appeals Committee shall be duly constituted for its work by five members appointed by the Chairmanâ€.
3. It must be noted that by the decision of the AC, Mr. Kwame Takyi was listed as one of the panel members of the AC which determined the appeal. However, by a letter signed by Mr. Kwame Takyi dated 20th April, 2015 and addressed to the Acting General Secretary of the Ghana Football Association (GFA) Mr. Kwame Takyi sought to indicate that he declined to participate in the case. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the contents of the body of the said letter as follows:
“RE: APPEALS COMMITTEE DECISION: KUMASI ASANTE KOTOKO VRS BEREKUM CHELSEA FC I wish to state that due to my affiliation with Accra Great Olympics, I informed the members to excuse myself from the matter since Olympics had a beneficiary interest in the matter.
My attention has been drawn to the fact that my name had been inadvertently included among members who sat on the matterâ€
4. The applicants supported their submission with a copy of the said letter and submitted further that the fact of lack of quorum was a new fact or evidence which they had discovered after the appeal decision and which could not have been known or obtained with diligent effort in the course of the determination of the appeal because the parties were, as has been the practice, not invited to appear before the AC.
5. The AC admits that Mr. Kwame Takyi mentioned his affiliation with Olympics but he was not ordered to decline participation in the meeting in terms of article 82 of the Disciplinary Code of the GFA.
6. Article 82 of the Disciplinary Code provides as follows: “WITHDRAWAL 1. Members of the Judicial bodies of the GFA must decline to participate in any meeting concerning a matter where there are serious grounds for questioning their impartiality.
2. This applies in the following cases (among others): a. If the member in question has direct interest in the outcome of the matter; b. If he is associated with any of the parties c. If he is associated with the same club as the party implicated d. If he has already dealt with the case under different circumstances.
3. Members who decline to participate in a meeting on any of the above grounds shall notify the Chairman immediately. The parties involved may also raise an objection to a member they believe will be biased.
4. The Chairman shall decide on any decisionon any such claim of bias.
5. Proceedings that have involved someone whom the chairman has ordered not to participate will be considered null and void.
7. Mr. Kwame Takyi’s concerns were considered under article 82 and was found not to fall within the instances of likelihood of bias as indicated under article 82(2). Particularly, it was not established that Mr. Kwame Takyi was personally directly interested in the outcome of the matter; nor associated with the parties ie Kotoko or Chelsea; nor was he associated with the same club as the party implicated. Besides, he had not already dealt with the matter under different circumstances.
8. In the result, the chairman of the AC decided not to order Mr. Kwame Takyi to decline participation in the meeting whereupon Mr. Kwame Takyi participated fully in the meeting. Accordingly, the AC had the requisite quorum when it delivered its earlier decision and that Mr. Kwame Takyi’s inclusion in the list of the panel of the AC was not inadvertent. Such a decision cannot be considered as null and void in terms of article 82 (5) of the Disciplinary Code. The appeal therefore fails on this ground.
Citation of wrong Rule 9. Essentially , the applicants submit under this ground that even though they concede that they quoted a wrong or repealed provision in support of their protest before the DC, the AC ought to have ignored the anomaly and considered the case on its merits since the case of the applicants was supportable under a different provision.
10. It is important to note that parties who intend to invoke the jurisdiction of the adjudication bodies of the GFA ought to come under appropriate provisions of the GFA laws since any wrong invocation of the jurisdiction would disable the adjudication body from considering the matter on its merits. Besides, parties should not expect the adjudication body to, on its own volition, perfect an imperfect procedural or substantive legal flaws in their matters before the adjudication bodies.
11. Furthermore, the AC finds the submissions made in support of this ground as constituting nothing but further appeal to canvass arguments which have been considered in the appeal decision. Such approach to review the applications is unsupportable in law and is bound to fail.
12. In our view, the application fails on this ground also. Accordingly the application is dismissed.
13. No costs is awarded.