|
Do courts have a rule about club conflicts?
2005-05-14 07:53:06
By Editor
Using the courts to obtain leave with regard to one or other happening at the two leading soccer clubs in Dar es Salaam has now become habitual.
After a members’ meeting threw out leaders of Simba Sports Club in the past month, the leadership failed to get the courts to intervene, as has now happened with their rivals, Young Africans SC.
It seems that a pattern of action is emerging from the courts as to what must be done.
From recent decisions given after besieged leaders went to court to stop actions of groups of club members, it appears a rule is being set.
It constitutes in advising club leaders that it is their responsibility to ensure that things don’t go out of hand in their clubs, that if this happens the courts - or the police - won’t help them restore order, etc.
The courts won’t intervene to help the few in a club conflict, but endorse the many.
When the conflict in Simba SC broke out as the team performed poorly in its first five matches of the premier league, and stories of misappropriation circulated, the courts acted that way.
As the leadership approached them for an injunction against unlawful assembly and change of leadership in those circumstances, they did hand in a ruling.
It was given a long delayed judgement, that their election to leadership was itself an error....
Lately it was the turn of the now disputed Yanga leadership to drink from the same cup, when secretary-general Jamal Malinzi sought a police permit for a meeting.
He returned to tell Yanga Kampuni adherents that the police had declined to issue such warrant on account of a bad security situation - in other words, wait until things had cooled down.
But, surely, does it mean the coup is consummated, making it beyond repair?
Club leaders and other interested persons may vary in their opinion of how courts and the police handle conflicts in the clubs, whether it is appropriate, etc.
It is unclear if there is anything in some miscellaneous legislation on powers of the courts or of the police which guide their conduct (as it is consistent, and thus rule-inspired) or it has developed out of habit.
Intervention is done sparingly, and not from just any request.
For club leaderships to get the courts or the police to intervene, they first have to convince the government about it, and increasingly this avenue is closed.
District sports bodies will tell the leaders to go to the soccer federation, which will direct them to the courts, and the latter back to TFF or district sports authorities.
But surprisingly, each level of authority is perfectly familiar with what a club constitution says about leadership.
On the basis of what these constitutions say about leadership, the courts and the police would be obliged to issue injunctions to protect leaders removed unconstitutionally.
Yet it must be remembered that clubs are private gatherings of individuals, and public bodies want them to solve their own problems, not getting the courts or the police to do it.
If unlawful breaching of the peace occurs - fighting, injury - it’s another matter.
The gist of the matter is that while it is unconstitutional to assemble and vote out a leadership, by a show of hands more often, intervention is unnecessary.
Quite often the members are provoked by a hesitant or, say, an incompetent leadership, and depending upon the balance of sentiments in the club, they can meet and remove them.
Erring leaders should know they are accountable to members, not to the courts and the police.
|
