adminSports Reporter
FORMER Warriors’ captain, Method Mwanjali, yesterday challenged his life ban from football with his lawyers arguing that the Zifa board’s decision to sanction the player, based on recommendations from Justice Ebrahim’s Committee, was a flagrant violation of the association’s constitution.
The Ebrahim Committee recommended a 10-year ban for Mwanjali, which was then converted into a life ban by the Zifa board, for his alleged role in the Asiagate match-fixing scandal, and the South Africa-based defender is challenging both his conviction and sentence.
Harare lawyers, Hamunakwadi, Nyandoro and Nyambuya, representing Mwanjali, said the Zifa board’s endorsement, or conversion, of the recommendations made by the Justice Ebrahim Committee, without the matter going through a proper disciplinary hearing first where their client could test the evidence presented, was a clear violation of the association’s constitution.
The lawyers claim, in their heads of argument, that the recommendations made by the Justice Ebrahim Committee had been misinterpreted by the Zifa board and, without taking them before a proper disciplinary committee where evidence could be tested leading to either a conviction or an acquittal, they could not be used to sanction the player.
“With respect, a point in line is raised that the functions of the Appeals Committee are clearly defined in Section 53.3 of the Zimbabwe Football Association Constitution which clearly states: ‘The Appeal Committee is responsible for hearing appeals against decisions from the Disciplinary Committee that are not declared final,’” said the lawyers.
“To that end, the life ban which was imposed on the Appellant by the Zifa board is never a decision of the Disciplinary Committee that is provided for in terms of Article 52 of the Zifa Constitution and the board’s unlawful decision cannot be defined as one that could be taken on appeal before the Zifa Special Committee.
“In the circumstances, it is submitted that the Zifa Special Appeals Committee cannot preside over an appeal that related to the misinterpretation of Justice Ebrahim’s recommendation by the Zifa board.
“It is also submitted, with respect, that Respondent failed to observe the rules of natural justice given that no disciplinary hearing was conducted by Respondent so that the recommendations made by Justice Ebrahim’s Commission of Enquiry could be put to test.
“In essence, a case is made that Respondent failed to observe its own Rules and Regulations with regard to the need to have arraigned Appellant before a disciplinary hearing after having received Justice Ebrahim’s recommendation.
“It is submitted with respect that had Respondent observed rules of natural justice, Appellant would have been afforded the chance to make his case before an impartial disciplinary committee, cross examine and interrogate any evidence which could have implicated Appellant in the match-fixing allegations since it is a time honoured principle that the onus of proving guilty is upon prosecution.
“Even assuming, by any stretch of remote imagination that Appellant would have been found guilty by the disciplinary committee, Appellant was equally entitled to make submissions in mitigation regarding the findings of the disciplinary committee and also would have been guided by the reasons of such finding.”
Mwanjali’s lawyers said it was crucial to note that Justice Ebrahim Committee terms of reference did not give them the authority to impose sanctions.
“Critical to note is also the fact that the Ebrahim Commission of Enquiry’s terms of reference does not allow the committee to impose sanctions but rather to recommend sanctions,” the lawyers said.
“It, therefore, follows, without argument, that such sanctions could only have been imposed upon Appellant through the findings of an impartial disciplinary committee, which committee was never set up by Respondent.
“For the avoidance of doubt, the Ebrahim Commission’s terms of reference are clearly enunciated on Page 4 of the same in the 5th paragraph wherein the report clearly states . . . the responsibilities and functions of the DC (Disciplinary Committee) are set out in Section 4 of the Zifa Rules and Regulations. The DC has power, under Section 4, to impose punishments. This committee does not have such power; it only has the power to recommend sanctions.’
“That clearly demonstrates that Respondent misinterpreted the import of the Commission’s recommendations.
“It is further submitted that the sentence imposed by Respondent on Appellant is outrageously shocking given that Appellant co-operated with the Ebrahim Commission of Enquiry. He openly told the enquiry what transpired and how Appellant was just one of the unfortunate players who were used for personal gains of the Zifa office holders of the time.
“Appellant did not waste the Commission’s time in its quest to stamp out match-fixing behaviour and Appellant was also remorseful, to say the least, In short, the Zifa board did not even take into consideration Appellant’s appeal that he be given a final warning against any such future conduct whose repetition would invite a life ban from participating in any football-related activity.
“In essence, the harshness of the life ban is demonstrated by the fact that Appellant was just a first-time offender, who is still youthful and who has also contributed a lot to the growth of Zimbabwean football as is fully acknowledged by the Ebrahim Commission wherein the Commission clearly states that…”in his favour is the fact he has contributed immensely to Zimbabwean football.”
Mwanjali’s lawyers claimed that the Zifa board misdirected itself by converting the q0-year ban, which had been recommended by the Justice Ebrahim Committee, into a life ban.
“Respondent also grossly misdirected himself by imposing a life ban against the wisdom of the Ebrahim Commission which had recommended a ten year ban on taking part in any football-related activities,” said the lawyers.
“With respect, Respondent could only have deviated from the recommendations had a disciplinary committee been set and also made aggravating findings that a ten-year ban period is insufficient.
No such finding was ever made and Respondent simply imposed a unilateral life ban.
“Wherefore, it is prayed that:
(a) The conviction and sentencing of Appellant be found null and void and is set aside or alternatively;
(b) The life ban in football matters be set aside and is replaced by a fine or caution.”
Online Reporter