GFF Disciplinary Committee acted outside of constitutional remit – Forde

May 07, 2017 Sports

---

Can only rule on matters of discipline – FIFA

By Franklin Wilson
The world governing body for football, FIFA has by way of official letter to the Guyana Football Federation (GFF) confirmed that the federation’s Disciplinary Committee has acted outside of its constitutional

remit in adjudicating on the matter involving the federation and four of its Elite League Clubs.
At a press conference hosted by the GFF yesterday at its Dadanawa Street, Section K Campbellville headquarters, President Wayne Forde accompanied by Executive Committee Members Bruce Lovell, Rawlston Adams, Keith O’Jeer and federation Lawyer K. A Juman Yassin brought the media up to speed with the latest on the matter.
Forde in a prepared statement stated that the Disciplinary Committee, despite lacking the constitutional authority, ruled against the GFF on April 17 last in the matter involving Slingerz FC, Alpha United FC, Pele FC and GFC.
The quartet had decided to withdraw from playing in season two of the Stag Elite League after the federation’s executive had taken a decision to expand the said league from 8 to 10 clubs, a decision which the aforementioned clubs felt the executive hadn’t the powers to execute.
But article 36 par.2i of the GFF constitution allows the executive the latitude so to do and this has been supported by correspondences from CONCACAF dated November 8, 2016 to the GFF and from FIFA dated February 1, 2017.
Not being satisfied with the responses of both FIFA and CONCACAF, the clubs wrote to the Disciplinary Committee of the GFF to adjudicate on the matter and this committee met, deliberated and ruled against the GFF on April 17, 2017.
Based on the decision of the Disciplinary Committee sought the intervention of FIFA which responded to the GFF by way of correspondence dated May 3, 2017. FIFA in its letter noted that while the issue seems to relate to an internal matter which does not come under the remit of FIFA, the world body highlighted few aspects.
1. “Based on the GFF statutes that were ratified by the GFF on 26 June 2015 and approved by FIFA on 7 July 2015, we deem that the GFF Disciplinary Committee is only competent to pass decisions in relation to disciplinary issues. Consequently, the GFF Disciplinary Committee should not decide on matters related to decisions by the GFF Executive Committee, such as the ones described in your correspondence.
2. The above point is further compounded by the information that the GFF does not appear to have yet adopted a disciplinary code upon which the Disciplinary Committee could act. Such code is to be issued by the GFF Executive Committee and must comply with the Disciplinary Code of FIFA and CONCACAF as stipulated in art. 61 of the GFF Statutes.
3. Lastly, we would like to seize this opportunity to underline that any decision that may have been or may be passed by the GFF Disciplinary Committee should be dealt with according to the statutes and regulations of the GFF as well as any relevant national laws in this regard. As such, the GFF Disciplinary Committee and Appeal Committee should operate based on a relevant set of regulations (i.e. a disciplinary code) which shall, inter alia, clearly define how disciplinary processes are to be conducted. Furthermore, such set of regulations shall ensure that judicial bodies are independent (separation of powers) as set out in art. 15 let. d) of the FIFA Statutes and it shall also establish that both committees are to be composed of different members.
Bearing the aforementioned in mind and based on the information in our possession, we deem that the decision taken by the GFF disciplinary Committee exceeds its prerogatives.
Forde in his presentation noted that since the GFF executive was of the firm belief that the Disciplinary Committee did not have the right to hear the matter, they did not take part in any proceedings whilst questioning the motivation and rationale behind such proceedings.
In finding a way forward, Forde informed that the GFF and FIFA are working together develop the GFF Disciplinary Code which will be presented to congress later this month for approval. He said this code will clearly spell out the role and remit of the independent judicial bodies.
The GFF Exco has also decided to take the matter concerning the Disciplinary Committee’s statements to the GFF Congress set for May 27 noting that the decision of the Congress would be final.
”We are also looking at further ways to strengthen the credibility, expertise and independence of the judicial oversight framework of football, in line with advice from FIFA and best governance practices from around the world.”
GFF Attorney, K. A Juman Yassin, the other speaker at yesterday’s briefing started by saying he was in full support that the Disciplinary Committee hadn’t the jurisdiction to deal with the complaint against the executive of the GFF.
In outlining what occurred in the mater whilst underlining his belief that the decision is suspect, Yassin said he received an email from Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee Attorney-at-Law Sanjeev Datadin on January 25 indicating that a hearing on the complaint would have been held on January 30.
Other members of the committee are Natasha Vieira, Dr. Clement McEwan and Wittington Braithwaite.
Yassin said he responded one day later indicating that the Disciplinary Committee did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and that the GFF’s decision to include the other two clubs were within their remit.
A hearing was fixed for February 3 which Yassin attended but stated that he was shocked to see that Mr. Michael Shahood was also present. Shahood is a member of the GFF Appeals Committee and therefore should not be part of the Disciplinary Committee as dual membership is not allowed.
Yassin also informed that whilst pointing out to Datadin that the committee did not have the powers to preside over constitutional matters but out of courtesy for the committee he nonetheless prepared submissions and presented to them on February 3.
It was stated that Mr. Braithwaite who was present at the February 3rd hearing was not invited by the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee. Following the hearing and subsequent decision of the Disciplinary Committee on April 14, Yassin informed that the decision to find the GFF guilty was made by only three members with Braithwaite being excluded.
”I could not believe that that could have happened. I know for a fact that Mr. Braithwaite had sent an email in which he said, I note in the papers of the 16th of April last that the committee met and certain decisions were made. I must state that as a member of that committee I was not informed nor invited to the meeting. I am surprised that there was such an important meeting without all members being informed and business conducted, this is against all protocols, these are the words from Mr. Braithwaite.”
Yassin further informed the media that prior to the final decision being made, Braithwaite had indicated to the Disciplinary Committee Chairman that he needed time to look at the matter and to be able to assess all the documentation but was not afforded such courtesy.
”All of this leads me to the fact that this whole decision and purported meeting and purported decision for me is very suspect. I think the chairman at that meeting on the 3rd of February should have said look, Mr. Shahood was not a member of that committee, he should not have been and that’s it. Up to now, I have not received any documentation from the committee which indicates that Mr. Shahood should not have been there and or, that he was not part of that committee which found the GFF guilty.”
The memorandum of reasons which was also promised by Datadin to the GFF on the matter has not been sent to date. An email was sent by Yassin to Datadin on April 16 indicating that the seven days in which he had promised that it would have been available were up but no response has been forthcoming from the chairman. The GFF GS would also have written to Datadin seeking details of the reasons for the ruling but no response or acknowledgement has been received by the federation.
”For those reasons members of the press, I feel certain that this decision by the disciplinary committee cannot stand.”
It was also pointed out that the procedure for calling a hearing is that the chairman would indicate such to the General Secretary of the GFF who would send out the requisite notices to the members but this was never adhered to. The GFF GS is also responsible for taking minutes at such hearings.

---

---