Ken Borland

A sports law expert on Friday raised concerns over whether Sascoc’s takeover of Cricket South Africa was legal and whether the process they have followed in coming to their decision will suffice in terms of giving the embattled organisation’s Board a fair opportunity to defend themselves.

The South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (Sascoc) had been approached by the CSA Board to help with their governance scandal. But on Thursday evening, angered by the continued refusal of CSA to show them the Fundudzi Forensic Report that led to the dismissal of former CEO Thabang Moroe, Sascoc demanded that the CSA Board and senior executives step down.

In a letter to the CSA Members Council, Sascoc announced that they will set up a task team to conduct an investigation into CSA’s affairs and instructed the Board, acting CEO Kugandrie Govender, increasingly powerful Company Secretary Welsh Gwaza and the chief operations and financial officers to step aside.

But CSA have refused to accept Sascoc’s intervention and have taken legal advice, while committing to continued engagement with the legislated macro body for sport. A CSA spokesperson said on Friday that “operationally it is business as usual” in the organisation, with Govender still in charge.

“We do not believe Sascoc are 100% right in their suggested resolution. They do have step-in rights, but the process they have followed is not 100% correct and they certainly can’t be suspending our staff,” a member of the CSA Members Council told The Citizen on Friday. “They have given us unreasonable timelines but we still want to meet and engage with Sascoc, who have said they will deal with the Members Council going forward.”

Process was the key factor mentioned by the sports law expert, who did not want to be named because he has dealings with cricket.

“Sascoc have to give CSA a reasonable time to respond, especially since they are making quite a far-reaching intervention. They may have the right to remove Board members, but the law does not like absolutes – which is why you can dispute a speeding fine in court if you get pulled over. There is also a question mark over whether Sascoc’s powers extend to CSA staff.

“Who does the BCCI phone today at CSA or who signs off on a broadcast deal worth hundreds of millions of rand? The National Sport and Recreation Act is not great and Sascoc’s step-in rights can certainly be legally challenged. What they have done is just not practical, it will create even more of a shambles and CSA will probably argue they should be given more time to engage with Sascoc,” the Gauteng-based sports and economics management expert said.

While there has been speculation that Sascoc’s intervention could also lead to the International Cricket Council suspending South Africa’s membership due to government interference, thereby preventing the Proteas from taking to the park, this has been deemed unlikely by those familiar with the ICC’s approach to such matters. The ICC last year suspended Zimbabwe for three months, during which time they missed the T20 World Cup qualifiers, after their board was replaced by the government sports commission.

“The federation actually has to go to the ICC and complain about government interference in order for the country to be suspended. The Zimbabwe situation was different in that this is not government, but rather a mother body that CSA is a member of, and Sascoc is a member of the International Olympic Committee, recognised by government but not part of it. It’s not like Sri Lanka where the minster of sport tried to select the team.

“It seems to me that Sascoc are instructing the CSA Board while consulting with the Members Council. They have a whole list of reasons why CSA are not managing, they need help, and as the mother body they are offering to set up a task team. The minister, the public and the players have all said Sascoc needs to do something, they have an obligation and the ICC would ask whether Sascoc are within their rights,” a former high-ranking ICC official told The Citizen.