The case involves an appeal by Karim Ibrahim against a decision by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) Vetting Panel, which declared him ineligible to serve as an IAAF official under the organization's Vetting Rules. These rules were introduced as part of governance reforms to ensure integrity and protect the sport's reputation by assessing the suitability of officials based on past conduct. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), with Sole Arbitrator Murray Rosen QC, upheld the IAAF's decision, rejecting Ibrahim's arguments that the rules were applied retroactively or violated the principle of ne bis in idem (double jeopardy). The Arbitrator clarified that the Vetting Rules are administrative, not disciplinary, and evaluate past behavior to determine current eligibility rather than imposing penalties for past actions.
The case stemmed from multiple allegations against Ibrahim, including mishandling athlete allowances, advising athletes to evade doping tests, and involvement in a doping cover-up. Investigations by the Malaysian Athletics Federation (MAF) and an Independent Enquiry Committee (IEC) found his explanations unconvincing and criticized his misleading statements. A prior CAS ruling also implicated Ibrahim in covering up doping violations. Despite these findings, Ibrahim was re-elected to leadership positions, and a Malaysian High Court later overturned his six-year ban from the MAF on jurisdictional grounds.
During the 2018 vetting process, Ibrahim failed to disclose these past controversies in his Vetting Disclosure Form, as required by the IAAF. The Vetting Panel, after reviewing the evidence and holding a hearing, concluded that his actions adversely affected the IAAF's reputation and declared him ineligible. Ibrahim appealed to CAS, arguing that the Vetting Rules unfairly targeted past conduct and constituted double jeopardy since the matters had been previously addressed. The IAAF countered that the rules were not punitive but aimed at ensuring current integrity standards, and Ibrahim's failure to disclose past issues was a separate basis for disqualification.
The CAS ruled that the Vetting Panel acted within its authority, emphasizing that the rules were not retroactive in a legal sense, as they assessed past conduct to determine present eligibility. The principle of ne bis in idem was deemed irrelevant because the Vetting Panel's role differed from that of the IAAF Ethics Board, which imposes sanctions. The Arbitrator found Ibrahim's defense evasive and noted his lack of disclosure further undermined his integrity. The ruling reinforced the IAAF's authority to enforce governance standards and upheld the Panel's decision as fair and justified. Ultimately, the CAS dismissed Ibrahim's appeal, affirming that his past conduct and failure to meet disclosure obligations rendered him ineligible under the Vetting Rules. The case highlights the challenges of balancing accountability with procedural fairness in sports governance while upholding integrity in athletics administration.