admin
The decision expected from Fifa will be binding and certainly bring to a close the drama that has been raging on for the last three years.
Marco Villiger, the director of legal affairs at Fifa, and Marc Cavaliero, the head of disciplinary and governance, have made their submissions on the case and legal committee chairman, Angel Maria Villar Llona, is expected to give Fifa’s position at the meeting.
According to the agenda of the meeting, circulated by Fifa secretary-general Jerome Valcke last week, Llona’s presentation is Item 28 and he will present a report “on the plenary meeting in Zurich on March 7”, where the Asiagate case was discussed.
The Fifa executive is empowered to “pass decisions on all cases that do not come within the sphere of responsibility of the Congress or are not reserved for other bodies by law or under these Statutes.”
The Fifa leadership is also set to discuss matters arising from the 2012 Ballon d’Or voting process, which is an item listed under miscellaneous on the agenda sent by Valcke, and the issue of Zifa officials, who masqueraded either as the national coach or captain in the poll, will be reviewed.
Sources at Fifa have revealed that while the world football governing body was impressed by the way Zifa tackled the match-fixing scrounge head-on, they were also frustrated by the way due process, in a number of cases, appeared not to have been followed in reaching a determination.
There has been a flood of letters that have been coming to Fifa, from parties who claim their rights were violated in the way the punishments were meted out without a proper disciplinary hearing being conducted, and Villiger and Cavaliero’s spirited efforts, to get supporting material from Zifa, have not yielded a positive reaction.
As late as last month, February 18, 2013, Fifa wrote to Zifa chief executive, Jonathan Mashingaidze, following up on a request for additional information, done in October last year, on Asiagate and gave the association a final deadline of 10 days within which to submit such correspondence.
By getting all the information by February 28, this year, the Fifa legal and disciplinary arms would have had sufficient time to go through all the files and make a determination ahead of the legal committee’s plenary meeting held in Zurich on March 7.
“We have not received yet an answer from your association to the request sent by the secretariat of the Disciplinary Committee on 29 October 2012 in which we asked you to provide us, by return, with documentary evidence (such as copies of letters, fax reports, emails etc) for each individual case involving a player or official, related with the conditions established in Article 137 of the Fifa Disciplinary Code,” Villigier and Cavaliero wrote in a letter to Mashingaidze.
“Furthermore, we have not been provided with any information on when and how the persons sanctioned had been informed of the appeal procedure.
“In the light of this, we kindly ask you to provide us with the requested information and proof of the communication of the relevant documenantion by 28 February 2013, at the latest.
“We thank you for your extremely valuable co-operation in this matter and we looking forward to hearing from you.”
The Fifa sources said the world football governing body outlined the process that Zifa ought to have followed in correspondence in October last year.
“We refer to the captioned matter (appeal by players and officials convicted of match fixing and illegal betting) and to your correspondence dated 21 October 201, the content of which was duly noted,” wrote Villigier and Cavaliero.
“In this regard we would like to first and foremost inform you that the appeal procedure concerning a decision taken by your association would appear to be an internal issue and consequently it would be for Zifa to establish what body is competent to deal with possible appeals against the decisions passed by the body you are referring to in your aforementioned correspondence.
“Notwithstanding the above and from the documentation currently in your possession, it would appear that the judicial bodies of Zifa according to Art. 51 of the Zifa constitution (statutes) are the disciplinary committee, the appeals committee and the court of arbitration, THAT SHALL HEAR APPEALS AGAINST DECISIONS OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE THAT ARE NOT DECLARED FINAL (CF. ART 53.3 OF THE ZIFA STATUTES) AND THAT THE RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE ZIFA DISCIPLINARY CODE (CF. ART 52.2 AND 53.2 OF THE ZIFA STATUTES).”
South African law firm, Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs, representing Zimbabwe international defender, Thomas Sweswe, appears to have triggered Fifa’s insistence, for all due processes to have been followed, when they challenged the player’s ban by Zifa.
They insisted that Sweswe was never brought before a Zifa disciplinary committee, as provided for by the association’s constitution, and was merely invited to a commission of enquiry that then made a determination on the case beyond their jurisdiction.
“Mr Sweswe was never charged as an accused before a disciplinary tribunal . . .
Instead, Mr Sweswe was invited to attend a ‘Commission of Enquiry’ telephonically”, and “at the enquiry no witnesses were called to testify against Mr Sweswe and he was not given an opportunity to question any witnesses and neither was he given an opportunity to rebut the evidence against him (if any),” wrote ENS.
“We draw your attention to the fact that within Zimbabwe and internationally, the proceedings have been referred to as a ‘Commission of Enquiry.’”
Online Reporter