31 October 2007
Lagos — The ban imposed on Chief Oyuki Obaseki, the former Chairman of the Nigeria Football League (NFL) and others by the Nigeria Football Association (NFA) last few weeks has raised some debates (for and against) as the lingering crisis between the two football bodies rages on, while the league competition flows undisturbed.
Some argued that Chief Oyuki Obaseki's ban of three years was excessive while others believed that he should not have been suspended at all because, NFL is a commercial entity that has it's own life and operation quite distinct from the control of NFA. They also argue that NFL is independent to the point that it's officials are not subject to the disciplinary authority of NFA.
Some went to the point of saying that NFA had only 33.3% of the allotted shares of NFL Ltd with Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) while the Club Owners Association had 33.3% and nothing for NFA. Therefore, NFL cannot be under the whims and caprices of NFA. The impression that Club Owners Association has 33.3% of the shares of NFL Ltd is not true as club owners is unknown to law and cannot subscribe to the shares of NFA. In other words, Club Owners Association is an illegal Association period.
Another school of thought held the view that NFL is a subordinate to NFA and therefore, all its affairs and operations should be under the Jurisdiction and Control of NFA. As a result NFA has the right to discipline the officials of NFL including the ban imposed on Chief Oyuki Obaseki and others.
Having considered the merits of all the arguments in respect of the matter, it is deemed appropriate to throw more light on the issue especially, with regards to the provisions of NFA and NFL Statutes in order to determine the correctness or otherwise of the NFA disciplinary measures against some officials of NFL which Chief Oyuki Obaseki - former chairman of NFL and others are agitating against.
First, let's look at the provisions of NFL Statutes, Article 1 of the statute provides that "the regulations may be cited as the Nigeria Professional Football League Statutes 2005" while Article 3(b) states that "the provisions of these regulations shall apply now and after NPFL is fully commercialised and incorporated as private limited liability company at the Corporate Affairs Commision".
This presupposes that the statutes were drafted before the incorporation of NFL with Corporate Affairs Commission in 2006. The pertinent question here is, what is the status of NFL upon incorporation? The answer was provided in the incorporation documents which gave Salihu Abubakar, representing NFL 49% while NFA had 51%.
Therefore, it is NFA that had the majority share of the company and should dictate the pace. Assuming that the two subscribers to the memo of NFL Ltd as stated above had equal shares, what happens in decision making process? The answer is provided in the equitable maxim of "where equities are equal, the first in time prevails". In this case, the first in time is NFA because NFA existed before the creation of NFL and it is NFA that gave legitimacy to the incorporation of NFL with Corporate Affairs Commission. In other words, without the consent and authority of NFA, NFL Ltd would not have been incorporated at all, in the first place.
In Article 3(d), it is provided that, "the overall operation of the NPFL shall be under the supervision of the NFA, in accordance with Article 18 of NFA statutes. The statute went further in Article 5 to say that the "object of the NPFL is to provide, organise, control and administer professional football under the jurisdiction of NFA and to facilitate the development of professional football in the Federal Republic of Nigeria in accordance with the statutes and laws of NFA, FIFA, CAF, WAFU and any other international football organisation".
The import of the foregoing provisions of Article 3(d) and 5(a) is to the effect that NPFL is under the supervision and control of NFA including its operation although, semi autonomy is allowed to the extent of the running of the league in an atmosphere clear to all.
As regards NFA Statute, Article 2(e) provides one of the objectives of the body to be, "to respect and prevent any infringement of the statutes, regulations, directives and decisions of FIFA, CAF, WAFU and NFA as well as the laws of the game and to ensure that these are also respected by its members".
The membership of NFA was provided in Article 10 of the statute to include "the leagues subordinate to NFA". Also, the subordinate nature of the league was enshrined in Article26(b) of the NFA statute. As a subordinate member of the NFA, Article 13 made provision for the obligations of all members including the league, which is compulsory.
Subsection (a) states that " the members of NFA have the obligation to comply fully with the statutes, regulations, directives and decisions of FIFA,CAF,WAFU and NFA at all times and to ensure that these are respected by its members".
On the strength of this, NFL represented by Chief Oyuki Obaseki is compulsorily expected to respect and comply with the decision and directives of NFA with respect to all the matters including referees but, he allowed referees matter to spark off the lingering crisis because, he and his team had ulterior motives to use same to discredit NFA. He has no option than to comply with all the directives and decisions of NFA, most especially as he was in attendance at the NFA Congress held at Ibadan on August 25, 2007, where the decision to commence the league on September 1, 2007 was ratified.
There was no time Chief Oyuki Obaseki raised the issue of referees at that meeting for deliberation, if he felt there was a problem that needed solution. That, he suddenly realised it was a very serious matter that would warrant suspension of the league, using the illegal Club Owners Association showed that Chief Oyuki Obaseki and his team had no regards for the NFA as a supreme and parent body. Referees placement under NFL has been an issue that had suffered terrible criticism because, it was been controlled by Chief Oyuki Obaseki himself who used same to dictate the situations of all clubs in the league.
The fact that Chief Oyuki Obaseki and his collaborators violated Article 17 of the NFL statutes which gave right of Referees Matter to NFA in exclusion of all others including the league is an indication of his negative attitude to the league, the clubs and NFA. Based on Article 13, the violation of certain provisions of the NFA statute made it imperative that NFA had to invoke Article 60 of the statute by setting up an adhoc committee headed by Chief Obinna Ogba to look into the matter and recommend to the Executive Committee of NFA for deliberation and decision.
On account of the recommendations of the committee, the punishment meted out to the erring officials were arrived at and it was in accordance with Article72(2)(f) which provided the disciplinary measures for natural persons. According to the sub section, any violation of the rule among others is "a ban on taking part on any football related activity" of which Chief Oyuki Obaseki was given three years while, others had less number of years. Instead of him to appeal against the decision as provided in the NFA statutes, he started to run from pillar to post, drawing unnecessary attention and seeking unwarranted sympathy for a serious offence he committed against a body he is the 2nd vice Chairman.
The law is said not to be a respecter of any individual no matter how highly placed and it is on the understanding of this fact that the punishment meted out to them were arrived at, in order to deter others who may want to borrow a leaf from Chief Oyuki Obaseki and his collaborators.
It is important to state that Article 13 (2) warned all members of the consequences of violating any of the provisions of the statute by providing that, "violation of the above mentioned obligations by any member may lead to sanctions provided for in these statutes". Therefore, what is the complaint for any body who voluntarily assumed a risk (like Chief Oyuki Obaseki did) as it does not avail any defence to him. The position of the law is that, "volenti nonfit injuria" voluntary assumption of risk is not a valid defence in a situation like this.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
