The case involves a dispute between Hamad Kalkaba Malboum, a former senior Cameroonian army officer and sports official, and the Association of National Olympic Committees of Africa (ANOCA). The conflict arose during the 2017 ANOCA presidential election, where Malboum contested against the incumbent, General Lassana Palenfo. ANOCA's Executive Committee (ExCo) accused Malboum of unethical conduct, alleging he accepted funds from the Cameroonian government to support his campaign, which they claimed violated the autonomy of sport and ANOCA's code of ethics. The ExCo based its decision on two documents: a financial request for campaign funds and a progress report on Malboum's campaign activities. As a result, Malboum was disqualified from the election, suspended from Olympic-related activities, and the matter was referred to the IOC Ethics Commission. Malboum challenged the decision, arguing the funding was legitimate and did not breach any rules, and requested a review by ANOCA's General Assembly. ANOCA's Juridical Commission rejected his appeal, leading Malboum to take the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS proceedings revealed significant procedural and substantive issues. Malboum contended that the ExCo's decision was politically motivated, lacked evidence, and violated due process. He argued that government support for campaigns was not explicitly prohibited and cited examples of similar support for other candidates, including Palenfo. Malboum also highlighted procedural flaws, such as the ExCo's lack of authority to impose sanctions without General Assembly ratification, the biased nature of the hearing chaired by his opponent, and the failure to disclose how confidential documents were obtained. ANOCA initially defended its decision but later admitted during the hearing that there was no evidence to support the bribery allegations and acknowledged procedural defects. Both parties eventually submitted a joint request to annul the ExCo's decision, expunge all sanctions against Malboum, and hold a new presidential election in accordance with ANOCA's statutes.
The CAS Panel examined the case under Swiss law, which allows arbitral tribunals to issue awards based on settlements if they are bona fide, non-fraudulent, and compliant with public policy. The Panel found no grounds to object to the settlement, as it aligned with the evidence and legal standards. The Panel noted the lack of evidence against Malboum, the ExCo's questionable authority to issue the decision, and the failure to involve the General Assembly. Consequently, the Panel granted the joint request, annulling the ExCo's decision, removing all sanctions against Malboum, and ordering ANOCA to cover the arbitration costs and Malboum's legal fees. The case underscores broader issues of governance, transparency, and procedural fairness in sports organizations, highlighting the importance of adhering to ethical standards and due process in disciplinary actions. The resolution also reflects the role of CAS in addressing disputes and ensuring accountability within international sports bodies.