The case revolves around Carvin Nkanata, a U.S.-born sprinter of Kenyan descent, who sought to compete for Kenya at the 2016 Rio Olympics. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) denied him access to the Olympic Village, citing his lack of a Kenyan passport as required by the Olympic Charter. Nkanata, who had applied for Kenyan citizenship but only held an acknowledgment receipt, argued that the IOC's decision was arbitrary, as he had been issued an Olympic Identity and Accreditation Card by Kenya's National Olympic Committee (NOCK). The IOC maintained that under Article 41.1 of the Charter, athletes must be nationals of the country they represent, and Nkanata failed to provide sufficient proof of Kenyan nationality.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ad hoc Division reviewed the case, emphasizing that the form of communication (verbal or written) does not determine the validity of a decision, only its content and legal effect. The panel upheld the IOC's authority under Article 52.2 of the Charter to determine accreditation eligibility, noting that the Olympic Identity Card functions as a visa waiver and thus requires valid national documentation. Nkanata filed his application with CAS on August 14, 2016, and a hearing was conducted the same day via telephone. The IOC argued that Nkanata lacked proof of Kenyan nationality, while Nkanata claimed he had been issued a Kenyan ID number but had not received the physical card. The panel dismissed his request, ruling that he could not meet the nationality requirement.
The Olympic Identity and Accreditation Card serves as a key document for participation in the Games, granting access to venues and authorizing entry into the host country. Nkanata argued that his U.S. passport and accreditation card satisfied Article 52, but the IOC and NOCK countered that his provisional accreditation was contingent on proof of citizenship, which he could not provide. The CAS panel found Nkanata’s interpretation of Article 52 flawed, as it ignored the nationality requirement under Article 41. The panel ruled that the IOC acted within its rights and dismissed Nkanata’s appeal, concluding he had not substantiated his Kenyan nationality.
Ultimately, Nkanata’s application was dismissed, and he was unable to compete for Kenya at the Rio Olympics. The case underscores the strict adherence to nationality rules in Olympic participation and the IOC’s discretionary power in accreditation matters. The panel’s decision affirmed the IOC’s stance, highlighting the importance of meeting both accreditation and nationality requirements under the Olympic Charter.