Ghana FA wants Attorney General’s injunction dismissed

The Ghana Football Association wants court to dismiss the Attorney General’s request to place another injunction on its activities.

The Attorney General placed a ten-day injunction to halt football activities.

“Respondent further says that the institution of the instant proceedings in breach of the rights of the persons mentioned in the allegations pleaded in the petition as well as Respondent’s, and without subjecting the video upon which the petition is mounted to due process also raises the question whether Petitioner has properly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for the reliefs herein sought.

“WHEREFORE Respondent says that the petition has no merits and should be accordingly dismissed,” the statement read in part.

Below are details of the statement

1. Save as hereinafter expressly admitted, Respondent denies each and every averment contained in the Attorney-General’s petition as if same were herein set out in extenso and denied seriatim.

2. Respondent admits paragraphs 1 to 5, 14, 24 and 30 of the petition.

3. Save that the power (right) conferred on the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ghana under section 4(2)(c) of Act 180 implies a duty to act for the protection of the public interest, such power being necessarily implied into the Attorney-General’s functions, paragraph 6 of the petition is denied.

4. Respondent says in answer to paragraph 6 of the petition that in the exercise of the power (right) conferred on the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ghana under section 4(2)(c) of Act 180 to act for the protection of the public interest, the Attorney-General’s fundamental obligation (duty) as a public official and above all the Minister for Justice, is to exercise such power in accordance with the law.

5. Respondent says in further answer to paragraph 6 of the petition that in the exercise of the Attorney-General’s power for purposes of protecting the public interest therefore, the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, must have regard to the principles of administrative justice and also act fairly.

6. Save that Respondent is registered as company limited by guarantee, Respondent denies paragraph 7 of the petition and says in answer thereto that it is not all of Respondent’s duties which are discharged in the public interest, Respondent’s main focus, in so far as its duties are concerned, being its members.

7. Respondent says in answer to paragraph 7 of the petition that it is obvious even from paragraph 2 of the petition that Applicant herself admits that Respondent’s existence as a company limited by guarantee is for purposes of regulating the football activities of its members and not that of the public at large.

8. Respondent says in further answer to paragraph 7 of the petition that Respondent’s members are made of private persons who, in the exercise of the fundamental right to associate, have come together to promote their common interest which is, among others, the promotion of the game of football between and among themselves and not the public at large.

9. Respondent further says in answer to paragraph 7 of the petition that none of the private persons who form the entirety of Respondent’s membership was established either because the public had any interest in it or for the benefit of any member of the public Respondent’s members, which are mainly football clubs, were established to promote the individual interest of the persons who promoted Respondent’s members.

10. Respondent repeats paragraph 9 above of the instant answer and says in further answer to paragraph 7 of the petition that accordingly, none of the clubs which form Respondent’s membership was formed or established pursuant to any resolution by a public or statutory entity, such clubs having been established by the private and voluntary acts of the individuals who promoted them (Respondent’s individual members).



11. Respondent also says in answer to paragraph 7 of the petition that the public’s involvement which may be loosely described as “interest” in the activities carried out by Respondent’s members (football clubs) in their associative relationship with one another in the form of a company limited by guarantee, is narrowly limited to the emotional attachment and the joy that the football activities carried on by Respondent’s members bring to them but such members of the public have no legal or equitable interest in any of Respondent’s members or Respondent itself for that matter.

12. Respondent repeats paragraph 11 above of the instant answer and says yet in answer to paragraph 7 of the petition that the fact that members of the public consume services provided by a private entity or even benefit massively from such services does not confer on any member of the public any right or interest in the activities of that private entity or constitute Respondent into a public trust.

13. Respondent says in final answer to paragraph 7 of the petition that no member of Respondent is funded from the Consolidated or Contingency Fund or from any other public funds.

14. Save that the National Football Teams are organized by Respondent and mostly funded from public funds, Respondent vehemently denies paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition.

15. Respondent says in answer to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition that the national teams are very different from Respondent’s members, the national teams being teams formed by selecting good players from Respondent’s members to represent the nation, Respondent’s members’ players being Ghanaians.

16. Respondent says in further answer to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition that Respondent’s involvement in the management of the national teams of the Republic of Ghana results from a practice that has existed between Respondent and the nation recognized by Federation of International Football Association (FIFA).

17. Respondent says in further answer to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition that at all times material to the instant petition Respondent has always acknowledged that the national teams belong to the nation and are not part of Respondent’s business.

18. Respondent repeats paragraph 17 above and says in further answer to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition that the specific nature of the relationship between the nation and Respondent, in so far as the national teams are concerned, is acknowledged in Petitioner’s own exhibit AG5as well as Government’s own White Paper on exhibit AG5 which is exhibited to the affidavit in verification and marked 1.



19. Respondent says also in answer to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the petition that as a matter of fact, Respondent manages the national teams for and on behalf of the Republic of Ghana which is a fact documented in Petitioner’s own exhibit AG5and confirmed by Respondent’s exhibit 1.

20. Save that Respondent’s activities have a bearing on the international image and reputation of Ghana, Respondent denies paragraph 10 of the petition and says that the activities of every Ghanaian, home and abroad most definitely, directly impacts the reputation of Ghana too, the reason for which Ghana expends huge sums of money on its foreign affairs especially its embassies abroad.

21. Save that the Commission of Inquiry to enquire into Matters Relating to the Participation of the Black Stars Team in the World Cup Tournament 2014, made findings against some of Respondent’s members, Respondent denies paragraph 15 of the petition.

22. Respondent says in answer to paragraph 15 of the petition that none of Respondent’s officers were found to have acted illegally and that in any case those officers in respect of which the aforesaid Commission made findings against have challenged the said findings as evidenced by exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5and 6 attached to the affidavit in verification of this answer.

23. Respondent says in further answer to paragraph 15 of the petition that the Commission never found any payment made by any of Respondent’s officers to be unlawful and that indeed the Commission actually found the Ministry of Youth and Sports (MOYS) as well as the National Sports Authority (NSA) to have rather engaged in various wrongful acts.

24. Respondent says in added answer to paragraph 15 of the petition that at all times material to the instant petition the officials of the MOYS and NSA against whom findings were made by the said Commission, have not challenged such findings for which reason if any action may legitimately be taken on the said findings, it can only begin, in all condour and fairness with the MOYS and NSA but not Respondent.

25. Save that Anas Aremeyaw Anas prepared and recently aired a documentary film, Respondent denies paragraph 17 of the petition.

26. Respondent says in answer to paragraph 17 of the petition that the said documentary film neither established nor proved any acts of illegality or criminality against any of Respondent’s subscribers, or directors or officials, the said documentary being the supposed investigative journalist’s prejudicial presentation of allegations of corruption against some of Respondent’s members.

27. Save that Respondent’s former President and others feature in the supposed “Anas Video”, Respondent denies paragraph 19 of the petition.

28. Respondent says, in answer to paragraph 19 of the petition that the feature of its former President and its members in the said video established or proved nothing criminal or illegal engaged in by them a fact put beyond doubt by Petitioner’s own exhibit AG7attached to the affidavit in verification of the petition.

29. Save that as subscriber to Respondent’s regulations Mr. Kwesi Nyantakyi has contested and won elections to serve as Respondent’s President in which capacity Mr. Kwesi Nyantakyi is entitled by the rules regulating Respondent’s affairs to appoint his Vice President, Respondent denies paragraph 23 of the petition.

30. Respondent accordingly says in answer to paragraph 23 of the petition that Mr. Kwesi Nyantakyi has contested and won elections to serve as Respondent’s President in accordance with Respondent’s rules and appoints his (Mr. Kwesi Nyantakyi) Vice President in accordance with the same rules and in accordance with which rules the Vice President is also dismissed, a fact confirming that Respondent acts in accordance with rules and not the perception prejudicially sold to the public suggesting that Respondent conducts its affairs without any standards or code.

31. Respondent further says in answer to paragraph 23 of the petition that as a private entity, it (Respondent) is entitled to decide its rules of succession agreeable to its members only, the views on the rules, held by individuals outside Respondent’s membership being irrelevant.

32. Save that His Excellency the President of the Republic of Ghana has tasked the Ghana Police Service to investigate the allegations contained in the Anas videoRespondent denies paragraph 25 of the petition.

33. Respondent says in answer to paragraph 25 of the petition that the report made by His Excellency the President of the Republic of Ghana is a step in the right direction the reason being that His Excellency the President recognises the fact that the allegations founded on the video being prejudicially compiled by Anas Aremeyaw Anas constitute allegations only, for which reason it is necessary for the appropriate authorities of State to investigate same.

34. Respondent says in further answer to paragraph 25 of the petition that in the capacity in which Petitioner has initiated the present proceedings, it would have (having regard to paragraph 25 of the petition) been a proper, fair and candid exercise of Petitioner’s power under section 4(2)(c) of Act 180 to have taken cue from the Respondent’s directions, and waited for the result of the investigations triggered by His Excellency the President before commencing the instant proceedings.

35. Respondent says in added answer to paragraph 25 of the petition that in any case, Mr. Kwesi Nyantakyi is not synonymous with Respondent and the instant petition not being about the liquidation of Mr. Kwesi Nyantakyi but Respondent, prejudicial allegations against Mr. Nyantakyi, contained in the so called Anas video have no place in the petition especially that Petitioner herself admits at paragraph 24 of the petition that Mr. Nyantakyi has resigned from Respondent.

36. Save that Anas Aremeyaw Anas has petitioned the world governing body FIFA in making the allegations pleaded in paragraph 26 of the petition, Respondent denies the aforesaid paragraph of the petition.

37. Respondent says in answer to paragraph 26 of the petition that the allegations contained in Mr. Anas’ petition to FIFA are not only based on the prejudicially edited video recordings compiled by Anas himself but are also unfounded in so far as the allegations of illegality and criminality are concerned and mounted in many instances on falsehoods.

38. Save that FIFA suspended Mr. Nyantakyi for a period of 90 days, Respondent denies paragraph 27 of the petition.

39. Respondent says in answer to paragraph 27 of the petition that the action taken by FIFA is a normal action taken by FIFA when allegations are made against one of its members, the temporary nature of the ban underscoring the fact that it is to pave the way for investigations into the allegations made against Mr. Nyantakyi.

40. Respondent says in further answer to paragraph 27 of the petition that taking cue from FIFA’s approach, it would have been a proper, fair and candid exercise of Petitioner’s power under section 4(2)(c) of Act 180 to have concluded investigations into the allegations made against Mr. Nyantakyi before commencing the instant proceedings and not to assume the allegations made by a journalist based on a self serving prejudicial presentation of his supposed investigations as having attained the status of a judicial finding which should accordingly be executed without due process.



41. Respondent says in added answer to paragraph 27 of the petition that in any case, and as pleaded before, Mr. Kwesi Nyantakyi is not synonymous with Respondent and the instant petition not being about the liquidation of Mr. Kwesi Nyantakyi but Respondent, prejudicial allegations against Mr. Nyantakyi have no place in the petition especially that Petitioner herself admits at paragraph 24 of the petition that Mr. Nyantakyi has resigned from Respondent.

42. Save that the Government of the Republic of Ghana is in contact with the FIFA and the Confederation of African Football (CAF) on the allegations upon which the instant petition is mounted, Respondent denies paragraph 30 of the petition.

43. Respondent says in answer to paragraph 30 of the petition that Petitioner’s aforesaid pleading renders the instant petition premature as neither CAF nor FIFA has confirmed that any legitimate basis has been established by government to justify a restructuring of Respondent and the drastic petition for its liquidation.