BBC correspondent Kennedy Gondwe has torn to pieces the life ban handed on veteran sports administrator Simataa Simataa saying it is an embarrassment to the game.
On Friday FAZ handed Simataa a life ban for allegedly leaking documents detailing plunder of resources at FAZ.
Below is what Gondwe wrote:
This Ethics Commitee seems to be in its own race to bring the name of the game into disrepute instead. How can a serious person or persons honestly ask for proof of friendship with someone; I mean how?
And this committee admits that Mr Simataa has previously submitted a complaint to them which they have not heard (or responded to) but go on to hear and rule over a matter that came much much later and yet fail to see how conflicted they are?
Honestly, is Mr Kephas Katongo seriously asking for proof of his friendship with Mr Andrew Kamanga? Honestly? Who doesn’t know that? And what proof would he himself produce if he were asked about proof of any other friendship with any other person than Andrew’s?
I have so many questions to ask arising from this statement but I’ll leave that for now because the levels of embarrassment this FAZ and committee are bringing upon themselves are beyond comprehension.
FAZ Bans Simataa
The Football Association of Zambia (FAZ) has with immediate effect banned City of Lusaka Football Club 2000 Plc General Manager, Mr Simataa Simataa from all football related activities for unethical conduct contrary to Article 13 (3) of the
FIFA Code of Ethic 2012 Edition.
Following a meeting held by the FAZ Ethics Committee, on April 11, 2018, Chairedby Mr Kephas Katongo, Mr Simataa was found guilty of circulating illegally obtained FAZ documents on social media and to various institutions with intent to discredit the FAZ Executive members and officials of the Association and thus bring the name of the Association into disrepute.
In line with Article 78 (1) of the FIFA Code of Ethics, FAZ has further accorded Mr
Simataa 10-days to appeal failure to which the decision will become final and
Below is the FAZ Ethics Committee full ruling
In accordance with Article 39 (1) of the said FIFA Code of Ethics, you were duly accorded the right to be heard and you were so heard on 24th April 2018.
At the hearing, you raised the following issues:
(i) That FAZ has no code of ethics in keeping up with Article 60 (3) of the FAZ
Constitution and, therefore, invoking the FIFA Code of Ethics required an
executive committee resolution in accordance with Article 79 on force majeure.
The committee considered your aforesaid issue and resolved that it lacks merit and is misconceived.
The FAZ Constitution under Article 7 clearly mandates bodies and officials of FAZ to observe statutes, regulations, directives, decisions and the
Code of Ethics of Fifa (emphasis provided) of CAF and of FAZ in their activities.
Therefore, your arguments on this point flies in the teeth of Article 7 of the FAZ
Constitution aforesaid and hence ought to be dismissed.
(ii) The Commissioners are all conflicted towards you on ground that one was
your family member whilst the Chairman was a friend of Mr Andrew Kamanga, the
You did not tell the committee what relationship you had with your alleged family member and the grounds on which the family member would be impartial against you, (if not for you), neither did you provide any proof of friendship between the
Chairman and Mr Andrew Kamanga, and if such relationship exists the grounds
on which it would undermine the impartiality of this committee.
It defeats any logic to suggest that your said family would have adjudicated the case against you. In summary, your aforesaid issue lacks solid grounds.
This issue is accordingly dismissed for want of reason.
(iii) The Committee members cannot sit to judge you on ethics as they do not
qualify under Article 58 (3) of the FAZ Constitution.
The Committee was duly appointed and ratified by the FAZ Council which is the supreme organ.
It is on record that you have submitted a complaint to this Committee which is pending determination. This is a contradiction on your part as on one hand you claim the Committee has no jurisdiction to preside over your
issue whilst on the other hand you have gone ahead and submitted a complaint which is pending determination to the same Committee you claim has no jurisdiction over your case.
The Committee has, therefore, resolved that your claim lacks merit more so that you as well recognise this Committee by submitting a
complaint before it.
Accordingly, this claim cannot stand and is dismissed as it is frivolous and misconceived.
(iv) The Committee has no jurisdiction over you given that FAZ rejected your application to be registered.
You introduced yourself to the Committee as General Manager of City of Lusaka Football Club 2000 Plc.
The FAZ Constitution defines an official as follows:
“Every board member, committee member, referee and assistant referee, coach,
trainer and any other person (except players) responsible for technical, medical and administrative matters in an association, a league or a club as well as any other persons obliged to comply with the FIFA statutes.”
By virtue of the above definition and your position at City of Lusaka Football Club
2000 Plc, the Committee found that you are subject to and under the jurisdiction of this Committee.
Accordingly, this assertion cannot stand and is, therefore, also dismissed.
(v) The Committee has no jurisdiction over you as a whistle blower as you are allegedly protected under Act, No. 3 of 2012.
The Committee does take judicial notice of the need to abide by the Law, suffice to state that the Committee is within its mandate to enforce the Rules and Regulations of FAZ and FIFA statutes with a view to promote the integrity and ethics in accordance with the provisions of Articles 2 and 7 of the FAZ Constitution.
Therefore, your being summoned and your subsequent appearance before this Committee did not at all constitute intimidation and harassment.
By virtue of your being the General Manager of City of Lusaka Football Club 2000 Plc, you are obliged to observe and abide by the stipulated FIFA, CAF and FAZ statutes.
This claim has no substance and is misconceived at Law and it is dismissed
accordingly. The Committee is compelled to comment on your conduct before it. After raising your final issue, you appeared angered, frustrated and you sarcastically told the
Committee that you were going to report all members to the Anti-Corruption Commission and the Drug Enforcement Commission for a reason only well known to you.
You then stormed out of the hearing with the words “you can do anything”.
Consequently, you neglected to respond to the charges against you and undermined the hearing process which contravenes Article 41(1) and (2) of the FIFA Code of Ethics.
Your conduct of storming out of the hearing was an infringement of Article 42 (1) of the FIFA Code of Ethics.
This Article empowers the Committee to further sanction a party for failure to cooperate as was the case with you suffice to mention that your derogatory conduct which you exhibited needs to be stamped out of football and its administration.
It is regrettable that a man who was once at the helm of FAZ can behave in such a manner.
However, the Committee proceeded to hear and determine the allegations as laid down in the letter to you of 11th April 2018 and found you guilty.
The Committee accordingly resolved to forthwith ban you from taking part in any
football related activities in accordance with Article 6 (1) (h) of the FIFA Code of Ethics, 2012 Edition.
In line with Article 78 (1) of the FIFA Code of Ethics, you may wish to appeal against the Committee’s decision within ten (10) days from receipt of the Committee’s decision failure to which the decision will become final and binding.
For and on behalf of:
FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION OF ZAMBIA