allAfrica.com: Nigeria: Was Ban On Obaseki Justified? (Page 1 of 2)

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.

web allafrica.com	Enter your search terms	Submit search form
OR subscribers use AllAfrica's premium search engine


Use our pull-down menus to find more stories

Today's Most Active Stories