Let’s have closure to this AFC-Sony match

The smoke surrounding match number 158 between Sony Sugar and AFC Leopards continues to billow - obscuring all that we Kenyan football lovers wish to see.

The job of the Independent Disciplinary and Complaints Committee (IDCC) - the tribunal for resolving disputes in the Kenyan game - is clearly spelt out and they did their task well after Sony complained over KPL’s decision to award the points to Leopards.

After a thorough scrutiny of the facts surrounding the complaint, IDCC overturned KPL’s initial to award Ingwe the match. IDCC ordered for a replay and after an inspection of the Awendo Green Stadium by the stadium safety board, it was decided that the match should be played at the venue.

BOARDROOM STATEMENTS

In the interim period after the ruling, we were shocked by some very disturbing boardroom statements lambasting IDCC for its ruling. The boardroom voice echoed thus:

“As a federation we don’t advocate for boardroom decisions but in this case Sony Sugar made a big mistake and must be punished for the same.
“KPL’s decision to award AFC Leopards’ the match will stand and we will have no replay in Awendo.”

KPL had in the meantime accepted IDCC’s ruling pending an appeal by Ingwe and the declaration that the original ruling was to stand was indeed unfortunate to say the least.

Football rules require that clubs lodge their complaints to IDCC, if clubs are not satisfied then their next option should be FKF’s Independent Disciplinary and Appeals Committee (IDAC) for a final decision on the matter. This is the requirement as per structures of the Kenyan game.

It seems Ingwe understood this well when the secretary general George Aladwa ejaculated: “It was an unfair decision which we will contest. We did everything right and we must not be punished. The venue we were being asked to play in was out-lawed by both FKF and KPL,”

It was within their right to contest the IDCC decision by appealing to IDAC and Aladwa was on the right path. The IDCC is supposed to be non-partisan and independent but the boardroom voice knows better:

“IDCC should have sought our opinion as FKF before making known their decision to demand for a replay. We are part and parcel of the sport and it could have been ideal that they seek for our judgment but that was not the case.”

It is therefore perplexing why the structure for resolving conflicts was put in place when it could be done pronto by some boardroom voice!

IDCC should have sought for the judgment of the custodians before giving their ruling or before making it known. Ingwe, on the other hand, has appealed to IDAC against the IDCC ruling; which is the correct procedure.

Leopards’ appeal was announced not by Aladwa or any other club official but by the federation chairman. KPL has not begrudged them their right to be heard at the higher echelons. We can only hope that IDAC shall reach a decision as soon as possible since the league is set to end by early November.

We have nothing against these two teams but we must highlight the need for respect to the conflict resolution mechanism within our football. When by pronouncement that a decision shall stand even when overthrown by the body mandated to do just that, we must begin to worry.

This is because it is blatant impunity for voices to hijack a legitimate process and push their own ego as the only way. The IDCC ruling, whose copy I have been studying for weeks, was a very thorough process which took into consideration all angles of the disputed game.

The IDAC may also add what may have been left out but how can we sincerely trust that it can give an independent decision when voices have already judged and set the outcome?

That boardroom decision shall stand and it will have set a precedent for any future resolution of conflict. To bedlam we are consigned!