THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT’S DECISION AND FIFA

By virtue of article 17(2): “A Member’s bodies shall be either elected or appointed in that Association. A Member’s statutes shall provide for a procedure that guarantees the complete independence of the election or appointment.” In view of the other subsisting articles in the FIFA statutes, the ONLY body that FIFA can recognise without any stress is the Board of the NFF before the election. (art. 17(3): Any Member’s bodies that have not been elected or appointed in compliance with the provisions of par. 2, even on an interim basis, shall not be recognised by FIFA.) So, what the NSC needs do is to work with the lawyers representing her interests in the FHC Lagos to help the court take a “reasonable and current” decision in tandem with Nigeria’s membership of FIFA. FIFA will only take an elected body or one appointed by its elected affiliates. So, the NSC can start to work behind the scene with the last Board.

THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT’S DECISION AND FIFA:
If the provisions of article 63(3) is anything to go by, the decision of the Federal High Court in Lagos may stand but the court has to be helped to reach a clear cut acceptable decision, viz, order the return of the Board that was in place as at when the election took place. That is what FIFA will recognize and yet, allow us to keep our face internationally and within the political releance of government in Nigeria. This is important.
This provisions cover the grounds whereupon it is not considered “football matters” which any other court can exercise her jurisdiction: 63(3) “CAS, however, does not deal with appeals arising from:
(a) violations of the Laws of the Game;
(b) suspensions of up to four matches or up to three months (with the exception of doping decisions);
(c) decisions against which an appeal to an independent and duly constituted arbitration tribunal recognised under the rules of an Association or Confederation may be made.

VII. ARBITRATION 45
4. The appeal shall not have a suspensive effect. The appropriate FIFA body or, alternatively, CAS may order the appeal to have a suspensive effect.
5. FIFA is entitled to appeal to CAS against any internally final and binding doping-related decision passed by the Confederations, Members or Leagues under the terms of par. 1 and par. 2 above.
6. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is entitled to appeal to CAS against any internally final and binding doping-related decision passed by FIFA, the Confederations, Members or Leagues under the terms of par. 1 and par. 2 above.
7. Any internally final and binding doping-related decision passed by the Confederations, Members or Leagues shall be sent immediately to FIFA and WADA by the body passing that decision. The time allowed for FIFA or WADA
to lodge an appeal begins upon receipt by FIFA or WADA, respectively, of the internally final and binding decision in an official FIFA language.

Article (64)1 provides for the conditions when matters of the game CANNOT go to a civil court. A careful examination shows exemption here. Now, the courts MUST be obeyed. The Court’s decision can be helped to be in tandem with the situations acceptable in the game;
(1) The Confederations, Members and Leagues shall agree to recognise CAS as an independent judicial authority and to ensure that their members, affiliated Players and Officials comply with the decisions passed by CAS. The same obligation shall apply to licensed match and players’ agents.
2. Recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the FIFA regulations.
3. The Associations shall insert a clause in their statutes or regulations, stipulating that it is prohibited to take disputes in the Association or disputes affecting Leagues, members of Leagues, clubs, members of clubs, Players,

46 VII. ARBITRATION
Officials and other Association Officials to ordinary courts of law, unless the FIFA regulations or binding legal provisions specifically provide for or stipulate recourse to ordinary courts of law. Instead of recourse to ordinary courts of law, provision shall be made for arbitration. Such disputes shall be taken to an independent and duly constituted arbitration tribunal recognised under the rules of the Association or Confederation or to CAS.

PROACTIVITY:
1. It is a fact that the tenure of the last board before the election terminated on the 28th August 2010. Given the position of the Nigerian law, with a subsisting injunction in place, it is trite law that that board is the one in place.
2. That is the ONLY board that FIFA will recognize if the law of the land and the order of the court will be obeyed and respected;
3. The order of the court is clear in sacking the Congress alongside the Board she elected; By eduction, there is no congress in place. It is only logical too since FIFA laws DOES NOT have room for a caretaker structure. The only way out is return the last Board; The Board can now write FIFA to ask for extension of its tenure, which also by precedence in FIFA is automatically one year, expected to lapse by the 28th August 2011; Then, draw up its time table of transition;
4. Once the State FA elections are undertaken, the Congress is thereby in place to ratify all these other actions of the Executive Committee;
5. The NSC upon getting the Board back by the order of court on the 24th September 2010, whereby, the papers are supposed to be prepared by Jalla’s and the NSC Counsel, in ‘helping the court reach the correct decision’. These papers have to be discussed IMMEDIATELY and filed on Monday to prepare the mind of the court to appropriately giving the decision;
6. With the Board in place, other details and modalities will fix in. (These may not be healthy to put on paper);

THESE ARE MY CANDID VIEWS AND POSITIONS.