adminSouth African law firm, Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs, who are representing the duo, said the time frame given by Zifa for the hearings was too short and placed their clients at a disadvantage if the matter, which is crucial to their future, was to be heard this week.
Zifa initially wanted to hold the hearings today but chief executive, Jonathan Mashingaidze, announced yesterday that the hearings had been moved to tomorrow and Friday to “give appellants ample time to prepare.”
However, Farai Razano, a South Africa-based lawyer representing Chidzambwa and Sweswe, said his clients could not come at such short notice, after the summons were sent on Saturday and arrived at their offices on Monday, for such an important hearing.
Razano wrote to Mashingaidze this week also questioning why his clients should attend the hearings, without having been given the transcripts of the disciplinary hearings that led to their conviction, from which they would have based their appeal.
Razano said they had also written to Fifa, to seek clarification on the status of the case, and since the world football governing body had the final say in the case, wouldn’t it have been proper at this late stage for Zifa to just wait for the Zurich-based organisation to come up with their pronouncement.
The full transcript of the letter from Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs to Zifa, which has since been obtained by The Herald from our special sources, reads:
“NOTIFICATION TO PARTY TO ATTEND APPEAL PROCEEDINGS — SUNDAY CHIDZAMBGA
1. We refer to the above and your email dated Saturday, 6 April 2013, received by us on Monday, 8 April 2013.
2. We have notified our client to attend appeal proceedings on 10 April 2013 in respect of the Asiagate matters. Our client will not be in a position to attend the said hearing on 10 April 2013.
3. The notice comes barely two days before the date on which the appeal is scheduled to proceed. As you are fully aware, our client is employed by a South African football club and is based in South Africa. In order for him to be absent from work and attend to personal matters, he will have to apply for leave from his current employers and make arrangements to travel to Harare for the hearing. All this is impossible to attain within a period of two days.
4. In addition to the above, our client paid the applicable appeal fee to your office sometime in December 2012. To date our client has not received the record of the Justice Ebrahim Commission’s proceedings. Consequently our client is not in a position to proceed with the appeal hearing until he has been furnished with all the necessary documents, in particular the transcript of the Justice Ebrahim Commission’s proceedings so that our client and us can go through these and prepare adequately for the appeal hearing. Zifa has not furnished our client with the pertinent information that our client will require to prepare for the appeal hearing, and it will be severely prejudicial to our client to proceed with the appeal hearing on 10 April 2013.
5. There have also been widespread media reports, which your office is fully aware of, that the Federation of International Football Associations (“FIFA”) has rejected the request by Zifa to endorse the sanction purportedly imposed on our client by ZIFA in respect of the Asiagate matters.
This, it is reported, follows repeated requests by Fifa to your office to furnish Fifa with the necessary documents that your office has in respect of the hearings that were held (if any) in respect of our client prior to our client being purportedly sanctioned by Zifa. After your office failed to submit these documents, Fifa made a decision that it would not grant the request by Zifa and refused to endorse the sanction purportedly imposed on our client.
6. We have written to Fifa requesting formal notification or confirmation of Fifa’s decision, and we are yet to receive any response in this regard. A copy of our letter to Fifa dated 2 April 2013, is attached hereto marked “SC1”.
7. Consequently, and without prejudice to our client’s rights, it is only appropriate that we get a response from Fifa in this regard before any other steps are taken. It will be severely prejudicial to our client to proceed with an appeal when Fifa has already made a decision with regard to this matter.
8. Kindly confirm per return that the appeal hearing will not proceed (on 10 April 2013) pending the response to our letter of 2 April 2013 by Fifa. Should Zifa’s position be to proceed prior to us receiving a response from Fifa, please let us have the transcript of the Justice Ebrahim Commission’s proceedings for our client’s perusal and preparation for the appeal hearing.
Only when our client has been provided with the transcript and given adequate notice will it be appropriate for the matter to be heard by the Zifa Special Appeals Committee.
Yours faithfully
edward nathan sonnenbergs
F RAZANO
Online Reporter