Disciplinary Committee awards Techiman City three points in respect of match against Berlin

The GFA Disciplinary Committee (A) has awarded Techiman City three points and three goals in respect of their GN Bank Division One Week 29 match against Berlin scheduled for September 27.

Techiman City Football Club (the Petitioner) on September 29, 2015 protested against Berlin Football Club (the Respondent) for failing to honour the match at Ameyaw Park, Techiman in contravention of Articles 7(1) and 7(2) of the Division One League Special Regulations and Article 34(1)(f) of the General Regulations of the GFA.

Below is the full ruling of the Disciplinary Committee:

PANEL
1. Prosper Harrison Addo, Esq. - Chairman
2. W.O.1 J.W. Amoo - Member
3. Godsway Glah - Member
Emmanuel Newton Dasoberi - Secretary
PROCEEDINGS
In accordance with Article 41.5 of the GFA Statutes and Articles 37(10)(a) to 37(10)(d) of the Ghana Football Association (GFA) General Regulations, the Disciplinary Committee (the Committee) considered the depositions from Techiman City Football Club (Petitioner) and the reports of the match officials.

SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
CASE OF TECHIMAN CITY FC
Techiman City Football Club (the Petitioner) on September 29, 2015 protested against Berlin Football Club (the Respondent) for failing to honour their Match Day 29 GN Bank Division One League match at Ameyaw Park, Techiman City FC in contravention of Articles 7(1) and 7(2) of the Division One League Special Regulations and Article 34(1)(f) of the General Regulations of the GFA.

According to the Petitioner, Berlin FC failed to honour the match without just cause when all the attendants including the four referees, the match commissioner, security men, ball boys and the home team were present. The Petitioner contended that match officials waited for Berlin FC for over 35 minutes and when they did not show up the referee whistled to end the match.

The Petitioner consequently, demanded that per Article 34(1)(f) of the General Regulations of the GFA, the club should be declared the winner of the match.

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF BERLIN FC
The Protest was served on Berlin FC by the GFA and the club had until 5pm on Monday, October 5, 2015 to send their Statement of Defence to the GFA.

Berlin FC's Statement of Defence was written on the club's letterhead and was signed by the club's secretary, Kingsley Dartey. This Statement of Defence was addressed to the Disciplinary Committee and was received by the GFA through its official email [email protected] at 5:25pm on Monday, October 5, 2015.

The Statement of Defence gave four reasons for Berlin FC's failure to honour the match including an allegation of abusive language by Techiman City FC against Berlin FC CEO and supporters on radio and at CEO's home, allegation of a threat of acid attack and alleged accusation by Techiman City FC against the CEO of Berlin FC for being behind the case brought against Techiman City FC at the Ethics Committee of the GFA.

Berlin FC stated that “the management of was not happy for not playing the match but there is a saying that had I know is always at last. The Executive knew that, they have breached the GFA General Regulation and GFA Article 34(1)(f)”.

Berlin FC appealed to the Disciplinary Committee to consider the reasons stated and the life of the club's Founder, CEO and the supporters.

FINDINGS AND GROUNDS OF THE DECISION
First and foremost, the Disciplinary Committee takes judicial notice of the fact that the Statement of Defence of Berlin FC failed to meet stipulations of Article 37(8)(a) of the GFA Regulations in terms of the three (3) days deadline. The Statement of Defence was also not addressed to the General Secretary of the GFA as required by the same Article 37(8)(a) of the GFA Regulations. The said Article 37(8)(a) of the General Regulation reads:

“The Club(s), official(s) or player(s) against whom a protest is lodged and who wishes to defend the said protest shall within three (3) days excluding Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays of being notified or served with a copy of the written grounds and Statement of Case file a Statement of Defence with the General Secretary of the Ghana Football Association and copies to the protesting club(s), official(s) or player(s).

On the computation of time and the three (3) days deadline, Article 84(4) of the First Amendment to the GFA Statutes states as follows:

“For the purposes of computation of time in these Statutes or any Regulations or Rules of the Ghana Football Association:

(a) Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays shall not be counted,

(b) Days shall start reckoning from the next working day of the week;

(d) Twenty-Four(24) hours shall mean until 5pm of the next working day”.

Thus, three days means 5pm on the third day following the service of the process.

Thirdly, the Statement of Defence was not sent on the appropriate forms for filing Statement of Defence as required by Article 37(8)(b) of the GFA General Regulations but rather on the club's letterhead. The said Article reads as follows:

“Filing of Statement of Defence shall be made on appropriate forms to be purchased at the offices of the Ghana Football Association, Regional Football Associations and District Football Associations”.

In light of the foregoing, the Committee cannot rely on the contents of the letter sent to the Disciplinary Committee by Berlin FC.

The absence of a properly filed Statement of Defence by Berlin FC on the appropriate form notwithstanding, the Committee in accordance with Article 37(10)(c) of the GFA Regulations proceeds to consider the protest and deliver its decision. The said Article states that:

“The Disciplinary Committee may deliver its decision in any given case even if one party fails, neglects or refuses to file a statement of defence or a reply as the case may be within the stipulated time.”

The Committee shall adjudicate the Protest brought by Techiman City FC on its merit in light of Article 34(13)(a) of the General Regulations of the GFA. The Committee, therefore, expects Techiman City FC prove its case to merit the decision the club requires even though Berlin FC has no Statement of Defence. The said Article 34(13)(a) of the GFA General Regulations reads:

“The burden of proof regarding a protest between clubs rests on the protesting club and in the case of a charge by the GFA Prosecutor, the burden rests with the Prosecution”.

On the instant matter, the relevant regulations are very clear. According to the Petitioner, Berlin FC should be made to suffer forfeiture of the match under Article 34(1)(f) of the General Regulations of the GFA which reads as follows:

“A team commits an offence punishable by forfeiture of a match where it fails to report for or fails to honour a match without just cause”.

This Regulation is replicated in Article 7(2) of the Division One Special Regulations stated below:

“Any Club that fails to honour any match without just cause shall be guilty of an offence punishable by forfeiture. Force majeure shall be considered a just cause.”

The official match reports confirm the failure of Berlin FC at the match in support of the Petitioner's case. Now at the pre-match technical meeting, Berlin FC informed the meeting of the same reasons in their defunct Statement of Defence as the reasons they will not play the match. The Committee will therefore consider the merit of those reasons. It is the considered position of this Committee that it is the preserve of the match commissioner to call off a match before kickoff and that of the referee to call off a match after kick off.

Thus, once the Match Commissioner concluded that the match was to go ahead because adequate security was available, it was not the place for Berlin FC to decide not to honour the said match in contrary to Article 19(9)(e) of the GFA General Regulations. The said Article reads:

“A Match Commissioner designated by the GFA shall be present at each match.

His duties shall be:
(e) The Match Commissioner may, if he deems it necessary for the security of the Referee or the visiting team decide not to have the match played until his instructions are carried out, but once the match is started, it is exclusively the prerogative of the Referee to suspend or end the match for any of the reasons in Law 5 of the Laws of the Game.

The Committee finds that the Respondent failed to honour the Match without just cause. It is also the finding of this Committee that the failure of Berlin FC to honour the match was not as a result of a force majeure. Berlin FC is therefore, caught squarely by Article 34(1)(f) of the General Regulations and Article 7(2) of the Division One Special Regulations.

The Committee thus, holds that the Protest of Techiman City FC shall succeed.

DECISION
The Committee therefore makes the following decisions:

1. That for failing to report for and to honour the match, Berlin FC shall forfeit its Match Day 29 GN Bank Division One League match in accordance with Article 34(1)(f) of the General Regulations of the GFA and Article 7(2) of the Division One Special Regulations.

2. That having forfeited the match, Berlin FC shall be considered as having lost the match in accordance with Article 34(3) of the GFA General Regulations and accordingly, three (3) points and three (3) goals are hereby awarded in favour of Techiman City FC.

3. That in addition, for being the defaulting club, Berlin FC is hereby fined Two Thousand Five Hundred Ghana Cedis (GH¢2,500.00) payable to the GFA, 50% of which shall be paid to Techiman City FC pursuant to Article 34(5)(a) of the General Regulations of the GFA.

4. That as the defaulting club, Berlin FC shall lose three (3) points from the club's accumulated points from previous matches, pursuant to Article 34(5)(a) of the General Regulations.

5. That the fines mentioned in Decisions 3 above, shall be paid to the GFA within fourteen (14) days upon receipt of this Ruling, failing which Berlin FC shall automatically forfeit all subsequent matches after the said deadline in accordance with Articles 39(8)(b), 39(8)(d) and 39(8)(f) of the First Amendment to the GFA General Regulations.

6. That should any party be dissatisfied with or aggrieved by this Decision, the party has within three (3) days of being notified of this Ruling to appeal to the Appeals Committee of the Ghana Football Association [See Article 37(11) of the General Regulations of the GFA].