Guest Report from Rasheed Balogun
Victimisation and intimidation: Sometimes when authority speaks the
words are louder in one’s ears than any auditory sound blaster. But the intent
and impact of such pronouncements invites strong criticisms, sentiments and
branding of the speaker on behalf of the authority.
I found myself
responding to the Sports Minister’s well intended effort to cleanse NSC by
instituting a panel made up of a jurist, NSC lawyer and Athletics Federation of
Nigeria (AFN) Board member (who also is NSC employee named Gloria Obajimi nee
Ayanlaja) plus may be some more people.
The circumstances
concern London Olympics ‘bribery for entry to represent Nigeria’ at the
Olympics, although the sports Minister failed to supply the definition of
bribery or ask the ‘athlete’ (Esther Obiekwe) to be represented by legal Counsel
which is imperative because NSC has its lawyer to sit on such panel and AFN
Board member also have a seat (this is a typical kangaroo justice).
Whether meritorious
or not the allegation invites full investigation with documentary evidences on
both sides not only the athlete because to do otherwise is victimising the
athlete.
Quite frankly, the
definition (whether legal or moral) of bribery will include athletes’ that were
shortchanged on allowances due them for any type of favour before the Olympics
(that is all competitions) which definitely invites all Olympics’ athletes’
presence before the panel.
For one thing there
were many allegations that some coaches were simply threatened and some
athletes were intimidated on fear of being dropped for Olympics consideration.
Problem with the panel
1. NSC stacked the panel with its own
staff (its lawyer, Gloria Obajimi from NSC from NIS and also AFN Board
member);
2. NSC truncated the universality of the
allegation to one athlete complaint;
3. NSC denied the athlete time to prepare
her complaint with legal Counsel;
4. The panel lacked independence.
Solution: Ideally, this is a serious allegation
dealing with all Olympics bound athletes (and federations) and dealing with a
complainant this way suggests scapegoating, victimisation and intimidation.
Essentially, no athletes will file any future complaint. As such, it will be in
Nigerians interest if the following are adhered to:
1. NSC immediately recall the panel and
institute new independent panel which may
or not include the current jurist on the current panel;
2. NSC must give the athlete time to
present her complaint with legal Counsel if she so wish;
3. No federation or NSC staff or lawyer
can sit on any future panel;
4. NSC must expand the term of reference
to look into all allegations against London
Olympics officials whether about money, favouritism or intimidations;
5. NSC must invite all athletes to speak
freely on any account of concern they wish to raise.
With these
suggestions in mind, any jurist properly empaneled will come up with additional
requirements to truly investigate bribery allegations.
Let me add that, the
media gave the Nigerian public announcements that the athlete was on the Olympics
team and how she made that team should be a concern to the Sports Minister not
just her allegation of bribery (prima facie the allegation may have been
proven) because an intelligent person would like to know how AFN made
statements to the media that she was on Olympics team.
Personally, I and
some other people questioned her inclusion on the listed names before the
Olympics and I doubt sincerity in this panel investigation, but it’s a welcome
development that ought to be done properly not what was announced because it
appears to be a sham and aimed to intimidate and victimise other athletes.
I rest.
Dr. Rashid A. Balogun, CPA, LLB(Hons.), LLM(London)
No comments:
Post a Comment