……….. FAZ Disciplinary Committee Ruling Raises Concerns Over Procedural Errors
The Football Association of Zambia (FAZ) recently announced a controversial ruling by its Disciplinary Committee (DC) in favour of Maestro United, igniting significant debate within the Zambian football community.
The decision, communicated via FAZ Facebook page, has raised critical questions regarding the procedural integrity of the process that led to this ruling.
According to FAZ, the Disciplinary Committee received recommendations from the Player Status Committee, which had previously ruled in favour of Kelvin Mwanza.
However, in a surprising turn of events, the DC chose to overrule this recommendation and called for a hearing on the matter.
This decision has been criticised as a procedural error that undermines the authority of the Player Status Committee, which is a standing committee established under Articles 41 and 46 of the FAZ constitution.
The Player status committee has clear jurisdiction to preside over contractual and transfer-related disputes, as enshrined in Article 23 of the FAZ Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP).
This independence is crucial for ensuring fair and just resolutions in player disputes, and any attempt by the Disciplinary Committee to override the PSC’s authority raises serious concerns about the procedural legitimacy of its ruling.
Furthermore, Articles 58 and 59 of the FAZ constitution establish the Disciplinary Committee as a judicial body, but its role is limited and should have only come into the Kelvin Mwanza case if there was need for sanctions.
The FAZ Statement says the Disciplinary Committee overruled the Player status committee recommendations, on whose instruction did the DC decide to call for a hearing and overrule a case that is not theirs.
The DC appears to have overstepped its mandate, which is a breach of the FAZ Disciplinary Code.
Articles 76 and 77 of the Disciplinary Committee Code explicitly outline the jurisdiction and limitations of the Disciplinary committee and suggest that it does not have the authority to preside over this case.
If the Disciplinary Committee lacks the necessary jurisdiction, then its ruling could be viewed as void, calling into question the validity of the entire decision-making process.
The bigger questions remain.
•Who instructed the disciplinary committee to preside on this case.
•What regulations or law did the DC use to overrule the player status ruling?
