Senegal relies on legal loopholes and contradictions in its appeal before the Tas Court

Moroccan lawyers and sports experts have exposed the “gaps and contradictions” in the defenses of the legal team of the Senegalese national team, which is in charge of the appeal file before the Sports Arbitration Court “Al-Tas” against the “CAF” decision to withdraw the title of the African Cup of Nations “Morocco 2025”.

This came after lawyer Seydou Diagne, representative of the Senegalese team, shed light on the merits of the file in a press conference in Paris yesterday, Thursday, where he confirmed that his country “does not intend to return the African Cup of Nations” to the Kingdom.

Shuaib Lamshal, a Moroccan lawyer and head of the Moroccan Center for Legal Awareness, said, “The legal team of the Senegalese side adopted three defences, as was evident from the aforementioned press conference.”

Lamshal added in a statement to Hespress: “The first argument relates to the allegation of fraud or manipulation and the indication that there is direct interference (from Morocco) and corruption within CAF.” He considered that “the legal evaluation of this approach is very weak, as it requires a burden of proof and strong evidence.”

He believed that “the purpose of this push is to put media pressure on the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Al-Tas) to issue a decision in favor of Senegal, at the risk of accusing it of corruption as well.”

Regarding the second argument by the Senegalese side, the same declarant spoke of “violating the principle of equal opportunities between the parties, and emphasizing that it must be the basis for a fair trial,” highlighting that “they see in this regard that the decision to withdraw the title from the State of Senegal included serious errors, and came from bad faith.”

This is also, according to the same source, “a very weak argument, and it will not benefit the Senegalese legal team in turn, as it needs strong evidence and clues,” and he added, “This is what this side did not provide.”

Lamshal pointed out that “the third and final argument relates to a ruling claim, that is, the presence of ruling defects, as the Senegalese side considered that CAF did not enable them to present their defense and did not provide sufficient justification regarding the withdrawal of the title.”

He highlighted that “this matter is also refutable from a legal perspective, given that whoever waives a right cannot claim formal violations regarding it. When the CAF Disciplinary Committee’s decision was issued, Senegal announced that it would not appeal the decision.” Therefore, “she has no right to raise that she was not enabled to defend her rights, because she was not a party to the appeal stage.”