admin
Sikhumbuzo Moyo Senior Sports Reporter
ZIFA have denied allegations that they are deliberately delaying handing sentence to Harare City chairman Leslie Gwindi so as to shut him out of the March 29 Zifa plebiscite.His sentence, according to the Zifa legal advisor Ralph Maganga will be handed on Wednesday next week.
It has been postponed twice before however. Gwindi was charged and found guilty of bringing the game of football into disrepute following alleged punchy comments, which he made at the Bulawayo Press Club early last year.
The fireband administrator, who challenged Cuthbert Dube for the Zifa presidency and is believed to be keen on running for the same post, faced charges of contravening Section 4.1, 4.2(f) and 4.3 of the Zifa rules and regulations 1996 which deals with “misconduct, betting, bribery, bad language and conduct likely to bring the game of football into disrepute”.
According to the charge sheet, on March 8, 2013 at the Bulawayo Press Club meeting at a city hotel, Gwindi unlawfully and with intent to damage the reputation of the Zimbabwe Football Association board in particular and the country’s football in general, committed an act of misconduct likely to bring the game into disrepute by using bad language and insulting the Premier Soccer League sponsors, Delta Beverages (Castle Lager brand), the Zimbabwe Football Association board, the Zimbabwe National Senior Team coach and the Minister of Education, Sport, Arts and Culture.
During the Press Club meeting, Gwindi blasted the PSL sponsorship, saying it was a pittance while also attacking the Zifa leadership for their lack of vision.
The case has dragged on for a while with observers arguing that the delay was a well calculated move by the Zifa authorities that will see the former Dynamos and Premier Soccer League secretary general being strategically taken off the race for the biggest post in national football.
“Why would anyone do that really, remember these charges surfaced in May 2013. As long as the electoral court feels he satisfies the constitutional requirements nothing will bar him from throwing in his hat,” said Maganga yesterday.
Speaking to Chronicle yesterday on his possible candidature for the Zifa presidency, Gwindi said he would make a public announcement “when the right time comes.”
“The right time will come for any announcement, not now,” he said.
Meanwhile, Zifa technical director Nelson Matongorere was on Monday fired from his post after being found guilty of disorderly conduct and insubordination.
Allegations against Matongorere were that he overstepped his authority when he voted for the World Player of the Year as well as the Coach of the Year.
He also stood accused of having a hand in the disappearance of Caf C licence certificates last year. Matongorere’s name appeared on the Fifa list of panellists as the Warriors captain who voted for Real Madrid and Portugal’s Cristiano Ronaldo, Gerard Pique of Barcelona and Spain and the eventual winner, Barcelona and Argentina’s Lionel Messi. For the coach of the Year, he voted for Pep Guardiola, Jose Mourinho and Alex Ferguson.
The ballot papers are said to have had Matongorere’s signature and also his name appeared on the Fifa list of panellists.
Part of the judgment read;
“Sponsorship is its lifeblood and sponsors only associate with an organisation who exhibit good corporate governance and transparency. The effect of the respondent’s conduct on the general public must also be considered.
“The fact that the chief executive officer signed the ballot papers only serves to prove that the respondent succeeded in deceiving him, nothing more. The respondent cannot be allowed to now turn around and rely upon that ‘success’ by pleading it is a mitigating factor.
“The offence itself is of a very serious nature as it involves dishonesty. Dishonesty goes to the root of the employer-employee relationship.
“It must be noted that by his own submission, respondent’s continued employment with the complainant had become untenable given his relationship with his immediate superior, the chief executive officer, but that us beside the point.
“We refuse to be drawn into his personal battle with the chief executive officer. We are mindful of the fact that … disciplinary action in the first place should be educational and corrective and that punitive action should only be taken when the said earlier steps have proved to be ineffective.
“However, the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed which were of the respondent’s own making display a high degree of moral blame worthiness and dictate that no penalty other than dismissal can meet the justice of the case.
“This employer and employee relationship is based on trust which once lost, the relationship can be terminated. Accordingly, it is ordered that the respondent be dismissed from complainant’s employ with immediate effect.”
Online Reporter