The case revolves around Jacques Anouma, former president of the Ivorian Football Federation (FIF), who appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) after his candidacy for the presidency of the Confederation of African Football (CAF) was rejected. The dispute centered on the interpretation and application of CAF's statutes, particularly the eligibility criteria for presidential candidates. Anouma's candidacy was rejected in December 2012 based on amended CAF statutes requiring candidates to have been members of CAF's Executive Committee, a condition Anouma did not meet. He argued that the new rule was unjustly applied retroactively and violated principles of equal treatment.
The CAS ruled that it had jurisdiction over the dispute, as CAF's statutes included an arbitration clause allowing broad recourse to CAS for such matters. It also affirmed Anouma's standing to appeal, as his candidacy was directly affected by the decision. The court upheld the authority of CAF's Executive Committee to assess eligibility, noting that the statutes granted it residual powers for matters not explicitly assigned to the General Assembly. The CAS rejected Anouma's claim of retroactive application, stating that eligibility must be determined under the statutes in force at the time of the election, ensuring legal certainty and equal treatment.
Anouma further argued that his role as an African member of FIFA's Executive Committee automatically made him a member of CAF's Executive Committee, but the panel found no statutory basis for this claim. The court emphasized that CAF's statutes clearly defined membership as requiring election or co-optation, neither of which applied to Anouma. Additionally, the panel dismissed his challenges to the clarity of the eligibility criteria and the validity of CAF's statutes, ruling that the requirements were sufficiently clear and that CAF, as an autonomous organization, could amend its statutes without FIFA's approval affecting their enforceability.
The CAS ultimately upheld CAF's decision, rejecting Anouma's appeal and confirming that he did not meet the eligibility criteria. The ruling reinforced the importance of adhering to statutory provisions in sports governance and the role of arbitration in resolving disputes over procedural fairness. The case highlighted the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment, and the authority of governing bodies to enforce eligibility rules consistently. The final decision, rendered on March 5, 2013, concluded the matter definitively.