The case involves a dispute between Tema Youth Football Club (Tema) and the Ghana Football Association (GFA) regarding the eligibility of players fielded by Dreams Football Club (Dreams) in a match during the GN Bank Division One League. Tema alleged that Dreams fraudulently registered two players, C. and J., under false names and dates of birth, making them ineligible to play. Tema protested to the GFA Disciplinary Committee (GFA DC), requesting the match be declared a forfeit in their favor, with points and goals awarded accordingly, and sanctions imposed on Dreams. The GFA DC dismissed Tema's protest, citing insufficient evidence, and fined Tema for filing a frivolous protest. Tema appealed to the GFA Appeals Committee (GFA AC), which upheld the dismissal but set aside the fine. Tema then sought a review of the GFA AC's decision, arguing that new evidence warranted reconsideration, but the GFA AC declined, stating Tema had not demonstrated a fundamental error or presented new evidence that could not have been discovered earlier.
The case was subsequently brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which addressed two key legal issues. First, it clarified the role of a whistleblower, stating that while a whistleblower must provide some basis for allegations, the authority must independently investigate and determine guilt or innocence, not rely solely on the whistleblower to prove the case. Second, the panel ruled that when an appeal committee reviews its own decision, it should appoint different members than those involved in the initial ruling and consider any new evidence, even if not formally submitted by the party bearing the burden of proof.
The CAS panel ultimately upheld the GFA AC's decision, finding no grounds to overturn it, as Tema failed to substantiate its claims of fraud or provide compelling new evidence. The decision reinforced the principle that football associations must properly investigate allegations of misconduct but also that clubs must meet evidentiary standards when challenging opponents' player eligibility. The case highlighted procedural expectations for disciplinary reviews and the balance between whistleblower-initiated investigations and the responsibilities of governing bodies.
Parallel proceedings involved disciplinary actions against player C. for breaching GFA regulations by registering under different names and dates of birth for two clubs. The GFA Disciplinary Committee imposed bans on C. for forgery and double registration, requiring him to correct his identification after serving the bans. Amidaus FC also filed a claim with the GFA Players’ Status Committee, which ruled that the registration of C. by Botwey Youth FC was null and void due to falsified details and improper procedures. The committee upheld a binding release agreement between Amidaus and Dreams FC and called for further investigation into the fraudulent registration.
Tema escalated the matter to CAS, filing an appeal against the GFA's decision and requesting provisional measures to suspend league activities pending the final ruling. Their appeal sought annulment of prior decisions, correction of league standings, and penalties against Dreams FC for fraudulent player registrations. Tema also nominated an arbitrator and later amended their appeal to include Dreams and FIFA as respondents, requesting expedited proceedings and injunctive relief to delay the league season. However, CAS rejected Tema's supplemental brief as filed out of time, dismissing Dreams FC and FIFA as respondents due to procedural non-compliance. The GFA opposed Tema's provisional measures, arguing no irreparable harm was demonstrated, and the CAS President subsequently rejected the request for a stay.
The Panel, constituted on February 3, 2016, requested further submissions on procedural aspects of GFA regulations, including complaint mechanisms, disciplinary processes, and appeal procedures. Both parties submitted additional written arguments, and the GFA was granted an extension to file its final submissions. The hearing was held on April 28, 2016, in Lausanne, Switzerland, with both parties participating via Skype. Representatives and witnesses presented their cases, underwent cross-examination, and answered questions from the Panel. The hearing concluded with both parties affirming that their rights to be heard had been respected and that they had been treated equally throughout the proceedings.
The Panel noted that Tema had provided evidence, including testimony from Mr. Osei, who claimed firsthand knowledge of the fraudulent identities. Tema also highlighted its inability to access player registration data, which only clubs and the GFA could modify. The Panel questioned the GFA's handling of the case, emphasizing that a whistleblower's role