The case involves Musa Hassan Bility, President of the Liberia Football Association (LFA), who appealed FIFA’s decision to reject his candidacy for the 2016 FIFA Presidential election. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) upheld FIFA’s ruling, finding that the integrity check conducted by FIFA’s Investigatory Chamber of the Ethics Committee was valid and that the Ad-hoc Electoral Committee had the authority to disqualify Bility based on the findings. The integrity check, which included a report by the independent investigative firm Mintz Group, raised concerns about Bility’s legal and ethical record, including a tax evasion conviction involving his company, Srimex Enterprise, and a six-month suspension by the Confederation of African Football (CAF) for breaching confidentiality obligations. Bility argued that the CAF suspension was politically motivated and that the tax case involved corporate, not personal, liability. He also contested FIFA’s reliance on third-party investigations, claiming the process was unfair.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from the Netherlands, Zimbabwe, and Switzerland, determined that FIFA’s delegation of investigative duties to the Mintz Group was lawful under Article 66(3) of the FIFA Code of Ethics, particularly given the complexity and time constraints of the case. The panel emphasized that the integrity check for the FIFA Presidency required an exceptionally high standard, demanding an "impeccable integrity record" due to the office’s significance and the need to restore public trust in FIFA amid past scandals. While no specific criteria were outlined in FIFA’s regulations, the panel agreed that a candidate’s perceived integrity, based on available information, was sufficient grounds for disqualification.
The panel rejected Bility’s argument that the CAF suspension and tax case should not disqualify him, noting that his withdrawal of the appeal against the CAF ban made it a final decision, and his failure to disclose it in his integrity declaration further undermined his credibility. The panel also dismissed claims of bias, stating that FIFA’s reliance on public records and third-party reports was justified, given its lack of coercive investigative powers. Ultimately, the panel concluded that the cumulative evidence of legal and disciplinary issues—including the tax case, CAF suspension, and discrepancies in his declaration—justified FIFA’s decision to exclude Bility. The ruling reinforced FIFA’s authority to enforce stringent ethical standards for its leadership, particularly for the presidency, to ensure the organization’s credibility.
The CAS decision clarified that its ruling was not a judgment on Bility’s overall character but a reflection of the elevated standards applied to FIFA’s highest office. The case underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in FIFA’s electoral processes, as well as the broader effort to rebuild trust in football governance. The panel dismissed all of Bility’s claims and upheld FIFA’s original decision, marking a significant precedent for future integrity checks in FIFA elections.