Hamid Abdul Ghafoor, Wed 26 December 2007, Male’
I caste doubt on the wisdom of the FIFA selecting rather than electing a Transition Committee to take over the Maldives FA in an interim capacity. This was over a fortnight ago. I had reserved my judgment on the effectiveness of this approach, but felt the FIFA backed process should be given a chance. I took this position out of respect for a global civil society organization which recognized supporting the democratic process as their corporate social responsibility. I hope the FIFA will not disappoint Maldivian football fans.
Maldives need FIFA Support
The Maldives need international support for fast tracking a national pro-democracy movement that has gained an overwhelming momentum since 2003. We of course welcome this coincidence of the FIFA’s timely initiative. I believe myself to be a pro-active partner in the process. I am a member of the Male’ Football Club. I have also served as a former Secretary General of the Maldives FA.
Within this context, I read with interest a scathing headline by veteran sports journalist Shaheeb in the 29th November edition of the Haveeru Daily sports page and heard a live television discussion on the same topic a week later on Mon 10 Dec. Shaheeb’s headline read, “Can the FIFA hijack the FA Maldives claiming infringement of FIFA Statutes?” Hijack being the operative word!
Shaheeb questioned FIFA’s legitimacy to impose such a process on a sovereign National Association. He asks why the Founder of the FA, the Sports Minister kept silent while FIFA acted “unilaterally”. Shaheeb may have been flirting with Article 19, subsection (c) of the Association Act. That is associations are forbidden to engage in “Any doings underrating freedom, sovereignty of the country or its government.” A disturbing accusation, open to many an interpretation in a globalized world!
FIFA has ordered the FA Chairman and executive committee be sacked and replaced them with an interim transition committee of its choosing. This was a month ago in mid November 2007.
Live television debate
I believe it was Shaheeb’s article that stimulated the live television discussion. The discussion eventually ended up in an insightful debate.
The central theme was not quite what Shaheeb was referring to, i.e. the assertion that FIFA had “hijacked” the Maldives FA. The theme had moved on. The question now being posed is the legitimacy of FIFA, to continue running the Maldives FA, even through an interim Transitional Committee. The situation is made worse by the fact that this committee is appointed and comprised individuals who did not، even by their own admission, represent member clubs.
Critics notice how the FIFA has replaced the previous executive committee of unelected member clubs with this new individualistic composition. The government has been running the association in this undemocratic “mode” for decades. FIFA knows that. FIFA has issued a number of “reminders” over the last few years, and strangely enough, it is now FIFA that is doing this!
The televised panel consisted of the FIFA Transition Committee Chairman Mr. Shahir along with an official of the Sports Ministry Mr. Nazeem, a practicing lawyer Mr. Shameem and a club representative, Coach Suzain. Sports commentator Shakir moderated.
Two points of contention were raised. Firstly, does the Association Act (1/2003) give the right to anyone other than a member to act on behalf of an association and secondly, even if assuming so, is appointing such an interim committee in the spirit of the FIFA Statutes? I think there is food for thought here.
Polarized viewpoints
I met both parties after the debate and constructed the following viewpoints in light of what they had to say in hindsight. This I hope will help deepen the discourse on the foundations of Maldives civil society with respect to the Law.
FIFA flogging a dead horse: Coach Suzain and lawyer Shameem while not denying Shaheeb’s assertion, was more interested in pointing out that FIFA was flogging a dead horse! The Football Association of Maldives is “legally dead”! Article 36 subsection (b) of the Maldives Association Act specifically caters for transition as follows:
b) Where Governing Regulations of associations are registered with the Ministry of Home Affairs, Housing and Environment prior to passing of this Act, such associations are required to alter them such that the Governing Regulations are in compliance with this Act, and submitted to the Registrar of Associations within one year according to Gregorian Calendar from the date of this Act comes into effect.
The fact is that the FA never transited under the new law. Since the deadline of one year for transition had already passed, the only way the association can be revived is for all members to gather at a congress and “resuscitate” or “re-constitute” the association.
The Sports Minister did submit an amended FA constitution in line with the new law. It has therefore been up to him to re-constitute the association as stipulated in Article 15, 16 and 18 and within the deadline specified in the transition clause. The Founder obviously failed. Article 36 (b) nor any part of the Associations Act give weight to the Registrar having authority to “extend” this one year transition period. FIFA walked into a legal vacume, and simply replaced the illegality of the Founder.
Shameem is concerned that it has been over three years since the one year transition period expired. This now leaves the founder legally powerless to conduct affair of the association even in an interim capacity as specified in Article 15 (c). So how can the FIFA possibly step into the shoes of the founder? The implication is the FIFA representative should have been aware of this! The intelligence FIFA got was flawed.
Suzain and Shameem further concluded that the founder, in the guise of the Sports Minister and all members of the Transition Committee may face a jail sentence of between two to five years for infringing Article 37 (b) of the Association Act. The accused simply smiled in shocked disbelief!
Is the FIFA Transition Committee valid? Chairman Shahir and the Sports Ministry Official Nazeem’s take on this issue was based on the “assumption” that the Registrar of Clubs and Societies have the executive power to extend the one year deadline to suit the founder (and now FIFA). They do not seem to be aware that the Founder is now attempting to use a different arm of the executive, the Home Minister to protect the founder’s interest and gain time by dragging the process with this lame story. Their innocent appeal was that the transition phase amounts to an act on behalf of the founder, to redress its own failure of 24 years.
The FIFA appointed Chairman maintain that his mandate is to oversee FA elections on behalf of the FIFA. The FIFA is now effectively a proxy of the Government. FIFA was acting with the consent of the Founder. The Chairman then goes on to refute the legal argument that his committee must consist of “members only” as stipulated in the law. The point Chairman Shahir makes is that it is only after the founder, now represented by FIFA Transition Committee, holds the first election that membership become effective.
In other words, the FIFA Transition Committee’s mandate is to, on behalf of the founder; conduct the required administrative chores that fill the space between registration and constitution of the association.
The opposition however responds with the view that the period of one year for transition expired three years ago and therefore both the founder (government), the Registrar (another arm of the government) and the FIFA (government proxy) is now operating outside Maldives Law! Quite a mess really!
The problem initiated by the Founder (Sports Minister) has now shifted over to another arm of the founder, the Home Minister. The Registrar of Clubs and Societies fall within the mandate of the Home Minister. The Registrar is conveniently “assuming” he has the mandate to extend the time of the one year transitional deadline already fixed under subsection (b) of Article 36. Lawyer Shameem points out that Article 8 DO NOT give the Registrar the authority to drag his approval of the proposed Constitution for more than the one year period stipulated in the Transition Clause. The FIFA Official should have been aware of this “irregularity” when he struck this “deal” with the Government of Maldives.
So where are we headed?
There do not appear to be any sane remedies really. The sad fact is that the Association is legally dead. The founder has lost its legal mandate over member clubs. The Registrar has in turn acted illegally to “protect” the founder. It really cannot get any worse.
We may therefore have to consider the choices available under Articles 31, 32 and 33 of the Association Act. Article 31 has to do with voluntarily dissolving the association. Article 32 spells out how we can go about cancelling the registry of the Association and Article 33 spells out how it can be wound up by a court order.
I cannot see how the FA can voluntarily dissolve itself when such an association has never been legally borne as stipulated in Article 15 and 36. It is the Registrar who can cancel the registry of an association under Article 32 (a). This obviously will not happen because the Registrar is in cohorts with the government and for this reason, have not cancelled the FA’s registration, be it legal or otherwise. Finally there is the option of the Court decision to dissolve the association. No one is taking the FA to court because everyone knows the infamous “founder” will immediately pop up its ugly head inside the court room and will take the same line as the registrar. The Kuda Heena case is an example of the courts compromised ambiguity.
A radical solution
I therefore propose a rather radical solution. That is direct action. I suggest the leading clubs get pro-active and call the over 80 member clubs (FIFA verifies 60) to a Congress and vote for “resuscitation” or “re-constitution” of the association, depending on what is legally possible. I have been proposing this line of action to leading club officials privately for some time.
There is no need or relevance of a Transition Committee by FIFA or any other party any more. The concept of transition does not apply to a legally dead organization. There is nothing to transit from.
This solution requires the leading clubs to actually replace the failed founder. The clubs may also at the same time consider an initiative to lobby with the legislature to provide a provision to the existing law to allow the FA to be registered under the same name for reasons of historical and national significance. If this is not possible, we simply register the association under a new name, say Maldives Football, instead of the present Football Association of Maldives.
The FIFA must remember that we in the Maldives are trying to find a 21st Century solution to getting rid of a culture of dictatorship that has both confused and stunted our development for thousands of years. The state has used sport purely for political gain. This is the time of change. Maldives Football needs FIFA to stand by its noble declarations under the banner of corporate social responsibility and mutual respect.
I hope the FIFA will not disappoint Maldives Football.
