GFA DC throws out Kristal Palace FC appeal

1. Prosper Harrison Addo, Esq. - Chairman 2. Eva Okyere, Esq. - Member 3. W.O.1 J.W. Amoo - Member 4. Godsway Glah - Member

Emmanuel Newton Dasoberi - Secretary

PROCEEDINGS

In accordance with Article 41.6 of the GFA Statutes and Articles 37(10) (a) to 37(10) (h) of the Ghana Football Association (GFA) General Regulations, this Disciplinary Committee (the Committee) considered the depositions from Kristal Palace Football Club (Appellant), Planners Sporting Club (Respondent) and the record of proceedings from the Disciplinary Committee of the Eastern Regional Football Association (ERFA DC).

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

CASE OF KRISTAL PALACE FC

Kristal Palace Football Club on October 22, 2015 brought an appeal to overturn the decision of the ERFA DC delivered on October 16, 2015 which dismissed the protest of Kristal Palace Football Club against Planners SC but upheld the protest of Planners SC against Kristal Palace FC. The ERFA DC consequently punished Kristal Palace FC for allegedly causing the abrupt end of their Second Division match.

The Appeal was grounded on three points. On the first ground of appeal, the Appellant alleged that the ERFA Disciplinary Committee lacked jurisdiction when it adjudicated the case since the Secretary sat as a member of the Committee contrary to Article 41(1) of the GFA Statutes.

On the second ground of appeal, the Appellant alleged that the ERFA DC found that the Appellant club had misconducted themselves. Appellant further stated that Article 41(5) of the GFA Statutes, which obliges the Committee to invites clubs, officials, etc to its sitting in cases of violence and misconduct was not compiled with.

On the third and final ground, the Appellant alleged that both petitioners made claims that the goal was scored from an indirect free kick but provided various arguments. The claim on this ground was also that there was no mention of the Match Commissioner’s report and also that the Appellant could have provided video evidence had they been invited by the ERFA DC.

The Petitioner consequently, demanded that the decision of the ERFA DC should be set aside and a replay of the match be ordered at the same venue with FIFA referees to officiate the replay.

DEFENCE OF PLANNERS SC

The Respondent, Planners SC, in its Statement of Defence stated the appeal has no merit and ought to be struck out because of a number of reasons. The Respondent argued that the Appellant got it wrong when they stated that the ERFA DC had no jurisdiction because a simple check at the ERFA would have pointed this out to them.

On the second ground, the Respondent stated that the ERFA DC is not obliged to invite anyone especially when the Match Commissioner and the Referee reports were very clear.

Finally, the Respondent argued that there was no need for their club to hinder the continuation of the match with a few munities left for their qualification.

The Respondent requested for the dismissal of the Appeal but also added that the Appellant must be made to pay their transportation cost from Akyem Tafo to Accra.

CASE OF KRISTAL PALACE FC

In its Reply to the Statement of Defence, the Appellant stated that the framers of the GFA Statutes wanted an independent person to record the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee and that having failed to obey a “mandatory requirement”, the ERFA DC lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

The Appellant repeated its arguments on the failure to invite them to the Disciplinary Committee meeting.

Finally, the Appellant also added two new grounds of appeal concerning the unfairness of the referee in the exercise of his discretion to end the match and the match being played without a fourth referee.

FINDINGS AND GROUNDS OF THE DECISION

On the composition of the ERFA DC, our finding is that three members of the Disciplinary Committee adjudicated the matter as required by Article 41(1) of the GFA Statutes.

The General Secretary of the RFA is mandated to provide a Secretary (this may be himself) for the Committee in line with Article 41(2) of the GFA Statutes. However, in the absence of the Secretary at the Committee’s meeting, it is not out of place to have a member of a Committee to double as a Member/Secretary of the Committee. The absence of a Secretary at the Committee sitting can never amount to a lack of jurisdiction of the Committee. A secretary only assists the work of the Disciplinary Committee and hence cannot affect Committee’s jurisdiction.

On the second ground of appeal concerning the lack of invitation of the parties to the Disciplinary Committee, it must be pointed out that Article 41(5) rather supports the decision of the ERFA not to invite the parties in this protest matter. The said Article 41(5) reads as follows: ”Except in cases of violence or misconduct the Disciplinary Committee shall not be obliged to invite clubs, club officials, match official(s) member(s) of a club(s) or player(s) to their sittings”.

Thus, the general rule is not to invite parties. The exception rather is in cases where a charge of misconduct or violence has been preferred against a party. This position is reinforced by the Protest proceedings in Article 37 of the GFA General Regulations since this matter is specifically on protest and not a charge for misconduct or violence.

Reference is made to Article 37(10)(b) of the GFA General Regulations: ”The decision of the Disciplinary Committee shall be based on the statement and/ or evidence filed by the parties. However, if in the opinion of the Disciplinary Committee further evidence is required to assist in the determination of the case, the Disciplinary Committee may take such evidence before delivery of its decision. In such cases, the Disciplinary Committee will be required to deliver its judgement within ten (10) days after taking any such further evidence”.

Kindly refer also to Article 37(10)(b) of the GFA General Regulations, which reads: ”All Club(s), official(s) and player(s) agree that their right to a hearing before the judicial organs and Players Status Committee of the Ghana Football Association are expressed by filing of a Statement of Case, Statement of Defence, a Reply and any further evidence given before the said bodies. Accordingly, representations made through their Statements shall be deemed final and conclusive of the factual and legal basis of their cases”.

It is very clear from the above that there was in fact no obligation on the Disciplinary Committee of the ERFA to invite the parties.

The above situation is distinguishable from a situation where there a charge of misconduct and violence. It is only in that situation that Article 35(8) of the GFA General Regulations is applicable.

In light of the foregoing, this Committee holds that the ERFA DC was right in deciding not to invite any of the parties to its sitting when it adjudicated on the protests and delivered its verdict. It is for these same reasons that this Committee also did not invite any of the parties to our sitting.

On the third ground of Appeal, it is our finding that it is only when the match reports of the Referee and that of the Match Commissioner on an incident are at variance that Article 83(3) of the GFA Disciplinary Code is applicable. The said regulation reads: “If there is any discrepancy in the reports from the various match officials and there are no means of resolving the different versions of the facts, the referee’s report is considered authoritative regarding incidents that occurred on the field of play; the match commissioner’s report is considered authoritative regarding incidents that took place outside the field of play”.

The ERFA DC’s resort to the Referee’s report as the true and accurate facts of the incident which caused the abrupt end of the match is therefore correct. To end all doubts, it is our finding that the Match Commissioner report agrees that Kristal Palace FC caused the abrupt end of the match.

Now, on the two new grounds of appeal introduced in the Reply, this Committee will not entertain them because trite law does not support an introduction of new grounds at that stage at the blind side of the Respondent.

With all the grounds of appeal considered, it is our position that we have not been provided with any ground or evidence whatsoever to warrant the overturning of the decision of the ERFA DC.

DECISION

The Committee therefore makes the following decisions:

1. That the appeal of Kristal Palace FC is hereby dismissed and the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Eastern Regional Football Association is hereby upheld.

2. That no cost is awarded.

3. That the Ruling of this Committee is final in accordance with Article 41(6) of the GFA Statutes.