Online Reporter
Innocent Kurira, Zimpapers Sports Hub
IN a bid to restore faith in domestic football, the Zimbabwe Football Association (Zifa) has controversially opted for full transparency in referee discipline, publicly naming and suspending officials for critical errors. This marks a major departure from the traditional, confidential process handled by the Zimbabwe Referees Committee (ZRC), where offending referees would simply vanish from fixtures.
Zifa maintains this firm stance is vital for safeguarding the sport’s integrity. The latest official to face public suspension is Owen Manenda, following an alleged error influencing the CAPS United versus Dynamos match. This comes after similar action two weeks prior against Lawrence Zimondi, Nelson Meke, and Tichaona Mbire for substandard performances in the Castle Lager Premier Soccer League.
Last season, referee Cecil Ngwezere and assistant Zondzi Ngosana received six-week suspensions after a contentious penalty decision led to the abandonment of the Chibuku Super Cup clash between Highlanders and Simba Bhora.
Replays confirmed the foul occurred outside the box, yet a penalty was awarded. For many, such incidents have severely eroded trust in officials, making this public disciplinary policy a long-overdue reform.
“I believe there’s nothing wrong with publicising referees who make incorrect decisions. It brings transparency to the game. For a long time, Zifa would take corrective action, but the outcomes remained internal. Football is a game with many stakeholders, and integrity demands openness,” said journalist and football commentator Luyanduhlobo Makwati.
Makwati cited European football as a precedent, where referees are sometimes suspended following post-match reviews. However, not everyone is fully supportive of the policy. Football analyst Praise Dumi Dhlakama cautioned against excessive punishment.
“While it’s commendable that the Zimbabwe Referees Association (ZRA) is striving for fairness, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for referees to make decisions. They are human and must make split-second calls. There should be some tolerance for human error.
“In my view, a referee should only face suspension after repeated errors — perhaps three or more matches. A single mistake, especially without the support of VAR, shouldn’t warrant severe punishment.
“Take the recent Scotland vs Herentals match, for example. On closer inspection, it’s evident that the first assistant was better positioned to make the correct call. The issue is more nuanced than it appears,” he said.
He further argued that the duration of suspensions should be reconsidered.
“Naming and shaming is sufficient. Adding four to six match suspensions feels excessive. Two or three matches would be more appropriate if the goal is correction rather than punishment.”
Zifa’s new transparent disciplinary policy for referees, while aiming to boost professionalism and accountability, faces scrutiny. Its ultimate success hinges on whether it genuinely raises officiating standards or simply frightens officials. Without VAR technology, Zimbabwean referees remain vulnerable to honest errors made under immense pressure.
