Legal Center: “A final decision” goes beyond the result to reconstructing the incident

The Mediterranean Center for Studies and Research in Sports Law said that the decision issued by the Sanctions Appeals Body of the Confederation of African Football (CAF), regarding the “CAN” final between the Moroccan and Senegalese teams, “constitutes a pivotal legal moment within the path of African sports justice, not only in view of its result, but also in view of the approach it devoted to addressing the conflict.”

The Center confirmed, in its report, that “this decision, within the limits of its wording, cannot be read as a mere correction of the result of a match, but must be understood as a comprehensive legal reconstruction of the incident, starting from questioning the procedural course before the Disciplinary Committee, through re-adapting the facts in light of the competition regulations, and ending with arranging a direct legal impact on the result of the competition.”

The same report highlighted that “the appeals body went further than simply monitoring the integrity of the initial decision, as it explicitly decided that the appellant was deprived of his right to a fair trial, which constitutes a clear indication of the existence of a fundamental procedural defect in the initial stage that affected one of the basic guarantees of the rights of the defense,” indicating that “this approach is a consecration of the principle that sports justice is not based only on the correctness of the result, but also on the soundness of the path that led to it.”

The Center also noted, based on the text of the decision and the media data accompanying it, that “the Appellate Body adopted a strict reading of the provisions of Articles 82 and 84 of the African Cup of Nations regulations, and considered that the behavior committed by the Senegalese team falls within the cases of withdrawal or its legal equivalent, resulting in a declaration of legal defeat. This reflects a trend towards strengthening the validity of the competition’s texts, and not tolerating actions that affect the continuity of play or the regularity of competition.”

While the appeal decision ended with the defeat of the Senegalese national team, and the victory of the Moroccan team with a score of 3 goals without a response, the same report reviewed the main possible scenarios regarding resorting to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which is based in the Swiss city of Lausanne.

The same source stated, “Possibilities remain between supporting the appeal decision and consecrating the Moroccan team’s victory, canceling it, and returning to the initial conditioning, or adopting a compromise solution that balances various legal and realistic considerations.”

Regarding the scenario of upholding the decision of the African Union Appeals Body, the CMEDS explained that “this scenario is based on the assumption that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS - TAS) will be convinced of the soundness of the approved legal arrangement, whether in terms of considering the behavior of the Senegalese team to fall within the requirements of Articles 82 and 84 of the competition regulations, or in terms of seeing a violation of the principle of fair trial in the first instance.”

The center also highlighted that “in this case, the court will uphold the appeal decision, either completely or with some formal modifications, which means confirming the legal result resulting from it, that is, considering the Moroccan national team the winner of the match, and the consequences that will follow on the title.” It added that “this scenario is related to the extent of the court’s conviction that the players leaving the field or refusing to resume play constitute an act of ‘refusal to play,’ and that this behavior has reached such clarity that it falls within Article 82, and that the appeals body exercised its authority to “Readjustment is legitimate.”

Regarding the scenario of canceling the appeal decision and returning to the initial decision; The Center’s report stated that it was “based primarily on the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s consideration that the Appeals Body exceeded the limits of its authority in re-adjusting, or that it adopted a more expansive reading than what the text of Articles 82 and 84 bears, or that the issue of a fair trial was not of a degree of seriousness that would justify the cancellation of the initial decision.”

Regarding the third scenario, the same source recorded that it is “one of the most complex scenarios, but it remains valid from a legal standpoint, especially since it results in the referee violating the rules of the game, especially in the ‘de novo’ principle, which gives the Court of Arbitration for Sport broad authority to find a solution to the dispute.”

Based on these scenarios, the same report confirmed that “the dispute before the Court of Arbitration for Sport will remain open to all possibilities,” and that “resolving it will not depend only on the interpretation of the texts, but also on an accurate reconstruction of the facts, and on a comprehensive assessment of the role of each of the players, the referee, and the previous judicial bodies.” He also concluded, “This stage will, in all cases, constitute a real test of the extent to which the sports judicial system balances between respecting the authority of the referee on the field and ensuring that the facts are subject to subsequent legal monitoring that guarantees the fairness of the result.”