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.”