Manase contests SRC ban

Daniel Nemukuyu Senior Court Reporter
Former Zimbabwe Cricket chairman Mr Wilson Manase is challenging Sports and Recreation Commission’s (SRC) decision barring him from participating in sports administration for four years. Mr Manase last Friday filed an appeal at the Administrative Court arguing that the disciplinary committee erred in imposing a ban on him for unilaterally sanctioning Zimbabwe Cricket’s tour to Pakistan in May when he was never charged of the offence.

According to the appeal papers, ZC was charged and convicted of the offence, but surprisingly Mr Manase, by virtue of being the ZC chairman, was slapped with a four-year sports administration ban.

Mr Manase wants the judgment quashed. “The charge clearly and as shown on page 1 of the ruling was preferred against Zimbabwe Cricket. Appellant was never a party to the proceedings neither was he charged as having contravened Section 28 of the Sports and Recreation Commission (General) Regulations Statutory Instrument 342 of 1995 as read with Sections 19(d) and 30(1) of the SRC Act.

“The respondent board’s disciplinary committee misdirected itself in charging the appellant when at no time during the hearing was Zimbabwe Cricket substituted by placing appellant as the accused.

“Appellant did not give a personal defence outline to the charge preferred against ZC as he was not charged in his personal capacity,” read part of the grounds of appeal. Mr Manase argued that the decision to tour Pakistan was not an individual one as found by the disciplinary committee but a board resolution, which was never overturned.

The disciplinary committee, Mr Manase argued, erred in allowing SRC members to participate in the hearing when the commission was an aggrieved party. To that end, Mr Manase said his right to administrative justice was violated.

“An independent third party ought to have been appointed to conduct the hearing. The chairperson of the disciplinary committee sits on SRC board which is the aggrieved party at what ZC is alleged to have done against their wishes.

“This is a violation of the appellant’s right to administrative justice as protected under Section 68(1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. “Her (chairperson’s) decision could not have been impartial as a member of the board of the respondent which was the complainant in the matter,” reads the appeal papers.

The chairperson acted as a judge in her own case in violation of the rules of natural justice, argued Mr Manase. The disciplinary committee, according to the appeal papers, punished the wrong person.

SRC is yet to respond to the appeal ahead of the hearing at the Administrative Court.