Fifa’s Asiagate fix

cases of match-fixing issues involving close to a quarter of their global membership, are urging football associations to avoid running the risk of throwing football into disrepute in their house-cleaning exercises.
There is concern, within the Fifa cir­cles, that the boardroom battles to be triggered by the final Asiagate report could end up on their doorsteps and have the potential of tainting the image of the 2014 World Cup finals, to be held in Brazil, especially after the Samba Boys, in particular, and legendary striker Ronaldo, were sucked in the ini­tial report prepared by Zifa.
Ronaldo, a three-time Fifa Footballer of the Year, is a member of the manage­ment board of the Local Organising Committee of the 2014 Fifa World Cup finals.
Zifa have handed life bans, from all football activities, on 15 players and officials on charges of match-fixing and illegal betting.
The bans are yet to be endorsed by Fifa.
Questions have also emerged whether Zifa have the jurisdiction to slap a life ban on anyone or their authority ends with just a recommen­dation, to Fifa, for such a sanction to be effected.
Former Zimbabwe captain, Method Mwanjali, and central defender, Thomas Sweswe, have engaged a lead­ing South African law firm and yester­day filed an urgent petition with Fifa questioning the disciplinary process that led to them receiving life bans from football.
Sunday Chidzambwa, the country’s most successful football coach, yester­day engaged the same law firm, after a meeting in Johannesburg, to represent him in his battle to have the Zifa ban declared null and void and his letter, which was drafted yesterday, is set to be sent to Fifa today.
Chidzambwa and Sweswe have also instructed their Zimbabwean lawyers to launch challenges, with the Adminis­trative Court, to have the process that led to Zifa pronouncing a life banish­ment on them from the game declared null and void.
Lawyers representing player agent, Kudzi Shaba, on Wednesday wrote to Zifa president, Cuthbert Dube, advis­ing him that they intend to take their challenge to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland, the avenue of appeal opened by the Inde­pendent Ethics Committee.
Pasipanodya Mukono, of Muringi Kamdefwere Legal Practioners, who is representing Shaba who was slapped with a life ban for allegedly being involved in match-fixing during a tour­nament in Bulgaria, revealed yesterday that they have started the primary phase of their appeal process which will end in the corridors of CAS in Switzer­land.
Shaba’s lawyers don’t want the Asia­gate report, prepared by a committee led by retired judge Justice Ahmed Ebrahim, challenged in isolation but also want the report, prepared by the Zifa investigating committee led by Ndumiso Gumede, tabled for examina­tion when the case spills into the CAS corridors.
Relevant material contained in that report, which implicated third party forces in a match-fixing web run by jailed Singaporean Wilson Raj Peru­mal, including sensational allegations that Ronaldo was paid by the same syn­dicate to feign injury ahead of the ’98 Fifa World Cup final between Brazil and France, has somehow been swept under the carpet.
The teams that Zimbabwe played against, in the alleged match-fixing show, have not been touched by the Ebrahim report and their national asso­ciations will have to be dragged before CAS as part of the appeal process, giv­ing the case its global appeal.
Yesterday, Constant Omari Selemani, a member of the Fifa disciplinary com­mittee, told The Herald that there was a real danger this case could snowball into a monster that could bring the entire football family into disrepute.
“It has come to our attention that Zifa have banned 15 players and offi­cials on charges of match-fixing. We are yet to get an official report on that from the association complete with all the relevant documentary evidence for our perusal, which is normal practice,” said Selemani.
“But, what needs to be clarified from the onset is that Zifa, like all other 204 associations, have no jurisdiction to hand down life bans, only Fifa, after careful examination of cases, can mete out such judgments.
“In other cases, the FAs can disci­pline members, but still Fifa has to endorse that, otherwise it will not be binding or enforceable. The reports are filed for future use as those banned may want to and have a right to appeal and, as Fifa, we will go to those files for evi­dence in the defence of the case.
“So, it is a matter that should not be hurried. It is also a case that should be treated with utmost seriousness, hon­esty and fairness as it has to do with the livelihood of people and the reputation of the game at large.
“A life ban should be meted when there is overwhelming evidence and very high prospects of success before any court, should the matter be refered for a review.”
Selemani questioned why Zifa decided to fast track this case yet it involved other associations.
Ebrahim, himself, said his committee needed at least another 12 months to produce an authoritative report rather than an interim one that they have given to Zifa.
“At the congress in Budapest (Hun­gary), Fifa advised that they had received a comprehensive report on global match-fixing compiled by the security team, headed by Chris Eaton at the time,” said Selemani, a Congolese.
“Interesting enough, in the same files there are reports by associations who played against Zimbabwe and as Disci­plinary Committee, we have not even made a single ruling on them.
“Our scope was to find how the fixers operate, who do they target and how, so that we can find a lasting solution to the cancer eating the fabric of the game.”
He said in all such cases the process was clear that after the reports are com­piled, the member association informs the Legal Committee of Fifa which looks at the report to satisfy themselves that there is a strong case that merits punishment.
The Legal Committee then forwards the report to the Disciplinary Commit­tee to determine the level of breach and, where necessary, a sanction within the prescribed and permissible level is determined before they can notify the Fifa executive committee.
It is only after the matter has gone through those channels that the mem­ber association get a response to sanc­tion the culprits.
Articles 57 -64 of the Fifa constitu­tion are so clear in how disciplinary issues are handled.
Everything that the Articles say rep­resents the opposite of how Zifa han­dled their case and announcement of the people they banned from football.
Crucially Fifa, despite having seem­ingly overwhelming evidence against Wilson Raj Perumal, have not sanc­tioned him yet with a life ban from all football activities in the world.
“We would love to go through the evidence that Zimbabwe gathered, without even speaking to Raj, and see how helpful it will be in other cases we have filed here,” said Selemani.
“But what is clear is that, as Fifa, we will not treat this matter in isolation as it involved other associations such as Malaysia Football Association, Jordan, Bahrain, Thailand, among others, for us to get any help from the files of reports we have.”
Safa advised all their affiliates this week that until Fifa writes to them, upholding the Zifa ban as should be the norm, the affected players and coaches will continue playing and working for their clubs.
“We know what the rules say about sanctions and we simply follow them to the letter because we are an affiliate of Fifa. As Safa we do not take instructions from newspaper reports.
“Everything in football should be done above body and Zifa know how issues are communicated. It is unfortu­nate, we are being forced to comment on domestic issues of fellow members, but to clear the air, we had to do that,” Safa president, Kirsten Nematandani, told Khaya FM radio.
South African Raymond Hack, is a member of the 16-member Fifa Disci­plinary Committee chaired by Swiss lawyer Marcel Mathier.