The GFA Disciplinary Committee has dismissed Tema Youth’s protest against Dreams FC after their GN Bank Division One League Match day 24 game played at the Kweiman Park on July 25.

PANEL 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 41.5 of the GFA Statutes and Articles 37(10)(a) to 37(10)(d) of the Ghana Football Association (GFA) General Regulations, the Disciplinary Committee (the Committee) considered the depositions from Tema Youth Football Club (Petitioner) and the match reports of the match officials.

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

CASE OF TEMA YOUTH FC

Tema Youth Football Club (the Petitioner) on August 4, 2015, protested against Dreams Football Club (the Respondent) for fielding two unqualified players, namely, Johnson Owusu Oppong and Cudjoe Mensah in their Match Day 24 GN Bank Division One League (Zone 3) game played at Kweiman Park. Tema Youth FC alleges that the two players played the said match in contravention of Articles 34(1)(e), 27(1) and 29(2)(a) of the General Regulations of the GFA.

The Statement of Case of the Petitioner is fully reproduced below (unedited): This protest involves two (2) players from Dreams FC namely Johnson Owusu Oppong (17) and Cudjoe Mensah (20) who were fraudulently registered in the TMS System at the FA. The names of these players have been fraudulently altered to conceal their real ages in the system.

Johnson Owusu Oppong was previously registered with the name Johnson Owusu and a date of birth of 25-2-96 and later changed to reflect Johnson Owusu Oppong with a new date of birth of 05-02-98 by the same club but at different entry data points.

Cudjoe Mensah with a new date of birth of 11-01-96 had featured for Aduana in 2011/12 season as Daniel Gorza and moved to Amidaus Professionals and registered on 2013/2014 with the same date of birth as it pertained in Aduana. His name has been fraudulently changed to Cudjoe Mensah to conceal his age and Bio-Data as previously entered in the TMS with a date of birth of 11-01-94.

The falsification of data is much against article 27(1) & 34(1)(e) and renders the player unqualified to play in the current league as specified by article 29(2)(a),

The Petitioner did not attach any evidence but indicated that further evidence will be adduced later.

The Petitioner consequently, demands the following reliefs (unedited): 1. To declare Dreams FC as losers of the 24th Week fixture as per Article 34(1)(e). 2. Three points and three goals should be awarded to Tema Youth FC as per 34(2) of the General Regulations. 3. Application of sanction under article 34(5)(a).

DEFENCE OF DREAMS FC The Respondent failed to file a Statement of Defence to the Protest within three (3) days of receipt of the Protest as stipulated by the GFA General Regulations.

FINDINGS AND GROUNDS OF THE DECISION

The absence of a Statement of Defence from Dreams FC notwithstanding, the Disciplinary Committee shall in accordance with Articles 37(10)(c) and 37(10(d) of the GFA Regulations proceed to deliver its decision.

The said Article 37(10)(c) states that: “the Disciplinary Committee may deliver its decision in any given case even if one party fails, neglects or refuses to file a statement of defence or a reply as the case may be within the stipulated time”.

Article 37(10)(d) also states that: “All Club(s), official(s) and player(s) agree that their right to a hearing before the judicial organs and Player Status Committee of the Ghana Football Association is 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”.

From the foregoing, the Committee shall adjudicate the instant Protest on its merit in the light of Articles 34(13)(a) and 34(13)(b) of the GFA General Regulations.

The said Articles 34(13)(a) and 34(13)(b) of the GFA General Regulations are reproduced as follows:

Article 34(13)(a) “The burden of proof regarding protests between clubs rests on the protesting club and in the case of a charge by the Prosecutor, the burden rests with the Prosecution”.

Article 34(13)(b) “In the case of an unqualified player in the sense of Article 29(1a) the burden of proof shall be incumbent on the protesting club”.

The Protesting club, Tema Youth FC therefore, has a burden of proof to discharge in order to succeed in the instant case.

UNQUALIFIED PLAYERS - ARTICLES QUOTED BY TEMA YOUTH IN SUPPORT OF CASE

The relevant regulations on which Tema Youth FC rely in the instant matter are very clear. According to the Petitioner, Dream FC should be made to forfeit the match in question in accordance with Articles 34(1)(e), 29(2)(a) and 27(1) of the GFA General Regulations.

The said articles are reproduced below:

Article 34(1)(e) “A team commits an offence punishable by forfeiture of a match where it fields an unqualified player(s)”.

Article 29(2)(a) “An unqualified player shall not take part in any competition organised by the Association”.

The above quoted Articles clearly set out the offence of fielding an unqualified player and its consequent punishment of forfeiture of the match in which the culpable team uses the alleged unqualified player. Which leads one to the question, who is an unqualified player? Hopefully, the third and final Article quoted by Tema Youth FC shall lead this Committee to the answer.

Article 27(1) of the Regulations states: “Registration of players(s) for different categories shall be in accordance with the requirements of Art. 26(2)(a) and (b). Additionally, the following procedures shall apply.”

The Committee therefore, reproduces Articles 26(2)(a) and 26(2)(b) below for clarity on the above regulation.

Articles 26(2)(a) “Each club shall be given a software by the IT Department of the GFA to generate an electronic registration form for each player for the Premier, Division One, Division Two League Clubs, Women League Clubs and Juvenile League Clubs. The form shall bear the signatures of the player, club official, the Medical Officer who examined the player, and shall be affirmed with a passport size photograph of the player (not more than six month old)”.

Articles 26(2)(b) “Clubs registering players shall pay processing fees as determined by the GFA”.

Now, the final part of Article 27(1), “Additionally the following procedures shall apply” refers the requirements for registration of the various categories of players such as Old/ Retained Player, New Player, Loan Players. Even though Tema Youth FC did not indicate which sub-clause or category the club was referring to, it was clear from the facts that the Protest relates to the New Player category.

Indeed, it is only Article 27(1)(b) of the GFA General Regulations that relates to the two players in question and the requirements are as follows.

Article 27(1)(b) - New players (on transfer – Amateur or Professional): (i) Players license from the releasing club. (ii) A transfer agreement between the old and the new clubs duly signed by authorized officials. (iii) Electronic form duly completed by the parties (iv) A contract between the player and the club duly signed by both parties where applicable. (v) Medical Certificate The Committee has painstakingly considered the above cited provision, as well as all the regulations being relied on by Tema Youth FC.

The above regulations do not support the facts stated in the Statement of Case of the Petitioner and there is no indication as to which of the regulations quoted by Tema Youth makes any of two players unqualified.

The Committee finds as a matter of fact that Dreams FC complied with all the requirements in Article 27(1) on the registration of new players in registering the two players in question, after which the Club was issued Player Licences in respect of the two players by the GFA.

Indeed, from the facts of the case, even by the widest stretch of interpretation, the closest one can come to suggesting that Dreams FC could probably have flouted the laid down regulations in the registration of the two players is if it can be established that requirement (iii) was not complied with.

Regrettably, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and especially, as the GFA being satisfied with the Respondent Club’s compliance with the requirements, deemed it appropriate to issue Player Licences in respect of the two players, it is the considered view of the Committee that Dreams FC did nothing illegitimate in the registration of the players in question to render them unqualified as alleged by the Petitioner.

Article 28(1)(c) of the General Regulations states as follows: ”Five (5) days from the close of registration shall be allowed for publication of the list of players registered and an additional 5 days for verification after which every player shall be deemed to have been duly registered, unless such registration of any player has been validly challenged within the period stated above. For the avoidance of doubts, no protest(s) against any player shall be entertained after the close of the registration, publication and verification of the name of such a player”. It bears mentioning that the Petitioner surprisingly omitted to cite Article 29(1) which defines an unqualified player and more importantly, to rely on same in seeking to trigger the application of Articles 29(2) and 34(1)(e) of the GFA General Regulations in support of its case.

Thus, on the issue of whether the two players at the centre of this protest are unqualified players per the GFA Regulations relied upon by Tema Youth FC, the Committee holds that the registration of the two players per our finding of fact is not in violation of the regulations being relied upon by Tema Youth FC - Articles 27(1), 34(1)(e) and 29(2)(a) of the GFA General Regulations.

ALLEGATION OF FRAUD (FALSIFICATION OF DATA)

The next issue that forms the gravamen of the case of the Petitioner is the allegation that the registration of the two players was fraudulent (falsification of data).

Indeed, to quote Tema Youth FC (refer to Statement of Case): “The falsification of data is much against article 27(1) & 34(1)(e) and renders the player unqualified to play in the current league as specified by article 29(2)(a)”.

Fraud is said to vitiate all contracts, processes and procedures.

Now an allegation of fraud (falsification) is a serious matter of law which must be thoroughly proved by the Petitioner in order for the instant case to succeed.

Unfortunately, the Petitioner provides the Committee with no evidence of the falsified documents or the data (please refer to the full Statement of Case by Tema Youth FC - Page 1 above).

In fact, Tema Youth FC only hints at the possibility of furnishing the Committee with evidence to ground its allegations when it states that “further evidence shall be adduced later.”

But considering the fact that no piece of evidence was originally attached to the Petitioner’s Statement of Case the Committee was not surprised that it received nothing further by way of evidence from the Petitioning Club.

Two days after the filing of the Protest, Tema Youth FC wrote a letter to the GFA requesting the General Secretary to cause the IT Department to send information to the Disciplinary Committee in relation to the instant Protest. The said letter again failed to disclose or indicate which specific information the IT Department should send to the Disciplinary Committee.

It is the considered position of this Committee that the said letter was procedurally flawed and also smacks of fishing, for a number of reasons.

It is trite law that only the official filing process must be used to enable the other party to be served in order to respond accordingly.

In any case, it is also common knowledge that, the Disciplinary Committee has the power to obtain information, suo muto, from the GFA Secretariat, if it deems it fit to do so.

Now on the substantive allegation of fraud, it is the position of this Committee that a party alleging fraud, is obligated to set out specifically the Particulars of the Fraud and further provide some form of evidence to enable the other party to respond appropriately.

The particulars should include the name, any material dates, times, documentations and communications to support same.

This requirement is in recognition of the principle that where a party makes a serious allegation of fraud, the party will not be allowed to go on a fishing expedition to obtain the particulars of the allegations from the accused and the system. This is so because without the requirement for particulars, a party would be at liberty to make any wild accusation it wants without the slightest knowledge of evidence at the time of making the accusation and the other party and the GFA would then be called upon to establish their innocence. That can never be the law.

The Committee wishes to refer the Petitioner to Article 29(2)(c) of the GFA General Regulations which states as follows: “Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision of this Article, the Association shall in all cases locate and punish the guilty party/parties. In the event of the player being the sole guilty party, the results of the match which he played shall stand”. The instant Protest is brought against the Club, Dreams FC and not the individual players whose registration is in issue. To succeed on the grounds of fraud, Tema Youth FC must clearly prove that the alleged fraud was perpetrated by the Respondent Club, Dreams FC, failing which, the match result the Petitioner seeks to overturn shall stand.

In the absence of any evidence in support of the allegation that Dreams FC falsified the data of the players, this Committee holds that Tema Youth FC has failed to properly ground the offence of fraud against Dreams FC regarding the registration of players Johnson Owusu Oppong and Cudjoe Mensah.

THE FACT OF THE REGISTRATION OF THE TWO PLAYERS

To put all doubts (if any remains) to rest in the instant case, it is important to note that the Committee went out of its way to ascertain the registration information of the two players from the IT Department.

Both players, Johnson Owusu Oppong and Cudjoe Mensah were transferred to Dreams FC from former clubs with Registration Cards/Licences clearly indicating the same names and dates of birth used in the registration of the players by Dreams FC.

Thus, the Committee holds that if there had been any falsifications at all, in respect of the registration of the two players in their history (assuming without admitting), it could not have been perpetrated by Dreams FC who only relied on the data on the player licences procured from the releasing clubs of the two players.

From the foregoing, it is held by this Committee that the Protest of Tema Youth FC shall fail.

DECISION