The GFA Disciplinary Committee has upheld the decision of the Volta Regional Football Association Disciplinary Committee in the Appeal case between Great Warriors and Sir Ernest FC.

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 Great Warriors Football Club (Appellant), Sir Ernest Football Club (Respondent) and the record of proceedings from the Disciplinary Committee of the Volta Regional Football Association (VRFA DC).

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

CASE OF GREAT WARRIORS FC Great Warrior FC on October 13, 2015 brought an appeal to overturn the decision of the VRFA DC delivered on October 1, 2015 which dismissed the club’s protest against Sir Ernest FC for allegedly fielding an unqualified player named Agbadi Richard.

The Appeal was grounded on two points. On the first ground of appeal, the Appellant alleged that only two members of the VRFA Disciplinary Committee adjudicated the protest and therefore the requirement of quorum under Article 41(1) and 41(2) of the GFA Statutes was not fulfilled.

On the second ground of appeal, the Appellant alleged that Sir Ernest FC fielded an unqualified player (Agbadi Richard) whose registration was in violation of Article 27(1)(a & b) of the General Regulations. The claim of the Appellant was that, the player’s card A for the 2010 football season was not procured from De-Mork FC even though the player was also not declared floating.

The Petitioner consequently, demanded that the decision of the VRFA DC should be declared null and void and the Appellant declared the winner of the match.

DEFENCE OF SIR ERNEST FC The Respondent, Sir Ernest FC, in its Statement of Defence stated in defence of the first ground that the Appellant did not provide any document to prove that only two members of the VRFA DC adjudicated the case.

On the second ground, the Respondent answered that Agbadi Richard was first registered by the Respondent five (5) years ago when Sir Ernest FC was known as Dragon FC. The Respondent claimed that De-Mork FC was itself defunct and not a member of the VRFA to claim ownership of any player. The Respondent further stated that the card and the issue, if any, were also more than two years old and were even caught by limitation. The Respondent then requested for the dismissal of the Appeal. FINDINGS AND GROUNDS OF THE DECISION On the first ground, as to the composition of the VRFA DC, our finding is that three members of the Committee adjudicated the matter as required by the GFA Statutes. The appointed members who formed the panel were: Ernest Gawu, Esq. - Chairman Harry Atutonu - Member Felix Seloame - Member/Secretary

It is our finding that all three members of the VRFA stated above, were appointed to serve on the Committee by the VRFA Executive Committee.

It must be made very clear that it is the General Secretary of the Regional Football Associations (RFAs) who must act as Secretaries of the Committees of the RFA or alternately appoint Secretaries for the various Committees. However, in the absence of the Secretary to the Committee, it is not out of place to have a member of a Committee to double as a Member/Secretary of the Committee.

This Committee, therefore, holds that there was quorum when the VRFA adjudicated on the protest and delivered its verdict.

We, however, recommend that the VRFA DC should indicate their panel on their decisions and also state the dates the decisions are signed by the Chairman.

On the second ground of Appeal, it is our finding that the player had been playing for Sir Ernest FC for a number of years. More especially, the player played in the previous season as a player of the Respondent club. Thus, the requirement of registering an old/retained player in Article 27(1)(a) of the GFA General Regulations was fulfilled. It is our position that since the player is not a new player, Article 27(1)(b) of the GFA General Regulations was not applicable in this matter and hence the VRFA DC was right in their conclusion.

Consequently, the Appellant has failed to prove its case on both grounds.

DECISION