The case revolves around an arbitration decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) concerning an appeal filed by Al Amin Mohammed Ahmed Al-Birair, the President of Al Hilal Club in Sudan, against the Confédération Africaine de Football (CAF). The dispute stemmed from an alleged physical assault on a referee by Al-Birair following a semi-final match in the CAF Orange Champions League between Al Hilal Club and L'Espérance de Tunis in October 2011. The CAF Disciplinary Board initially provisionally suspended Al-Birair for 30 days, later imposing a two-year ban from football-related activities and a $10,000 fine. The CAF Appeal Board subsequently increased the ban to four years and recommended FIFA extend the sanction internationally. Al-Birair appealed to CAS, arguing insufficient evidence and procedural violations.
The CAS panel, comprising Lars Halgreen, Olivier Carrard, and Mark Hovell, examined the case under the "comfortable satisfaction" standard, requiring a higher degree of certainty than a mere balance of probabilities. The panel found the witness statements from the match commissioner and the first assistant referee insufficient to conclusively identify Al-Birair as the assailant. Evidence presented by Al-Birair, including medical records showing he was hospitalized at 21:03—15 minutes after the alleged assault at 20:48—made it physically improbable for him to have committed the act. Additionally, another individual, Mr. Abdel Rajab, confessed to the assault, further supporting Al-Birair's innocence. The panel also noted inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts and questioned the reliability of the identification process, as the witnesses had only briefly interacted with Al-Birair during a pre-match ceremony.
On procedural grounds, Al-Birair argued that the CAF Appeal Board lacked authority to increase his sanction, citing the principle of "Reformatio In Pejus," which prohibits worsening a penalty on appeal. He also contended that the ban exceeded the sanctions prescribed under the CAF Disciplinary Code (CDC), violating the principle of legality. CAF defended its decision, asserting that disciplinary disputes in sports are civil matters and that the burden of proof lay with the athlete under CDC rules. They relied on match officials' reports, which identified Al-Birair as the aggressor, and dismissed his alibi and medical evidence as unreliable.
The CAS panel ultimately concluded that the charges against Al-Birair were not substantiated by the evidence and overturned the sanctions imposed by CAF. The decision highlighted the importance of robust evidence in disciplinary cases and reinforced the principle that allegations must be proven to the comfortable satisfaction of the adjudicating body. The ruling underscored CAS's role in ensuring fairness and due process in sports-related disputes, annulling the four-year ban and $10,000 fine imposed on Al-Birair. The case demonstrates the complexities of establishing facts in disciplinary violations and the critical role of credible evidence in such proceedings.