The case involves a dispute between Al-Merrikh Sports Club and the Sudan Football Association (SFA), adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The central issue revolved around the SFA's authority to impose disciplinary sanctions on the Club and its president, Mr. Adam Abdallah Adam, following internal governance conflicts. The dispute arose when the SFA appointed a Tripartite Committee to oversee the Club's affairs after dismissing its executive body, leading to contested decisions. The Club argued that the SFA lacked jurisdiction to impose sanctions, as only the SFA's Disciplinary Committee held such authority under its statutes. The SFA, however, claimed the Board of Directors had the power to impose the sanction under Article 38 of its statutes, framing it as a response to Mr. Adam's refusal to cooperate rather than a disciplinary measure.
The CAS panel examined the SFA's statutes and disciplinary regulations, emphasizing the principles of legality and predictability. It found that the General Assembly and Board of Directors only had authority over suspensions and expulsions of members, with other disciplinary matters falling under the Disciplinary Committee's jurisdiction. The panel also noted that the sanction of "not dealing with" Mr. Adam was not listed among the permissible disciplinary measures in the SFA's regulations, violating the principle of nulla poena sine lege. The panel rejected the SFA's argument that the decision was non-disciplinary, as both the Appeal and Disciplinary Committees had classified it as a punishment.
Ultimately, the CAS ruled that the SFA's Board of Directors and Tripartite Committee lacked the authority to impose the sanction, annulling the decision and upholding the Club's appeal. The case underscores the importance of clear and precise rules in sports governance to prevent arbitrary disciplinary actions and ensure legal certainty. The ruling serves as a precedent for similar disputes involving the jurisdiction of sports federations and the predictability of disciplinary measures. The panel's decision, dated 10 June 2022, resolved the matter by addressing the legal and factual complexities of the dispute, reinforcing adherence to established legal principles in sports governance.