IN THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

GHANA FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION

Protest Case: No. A10- 2018
CORAM
1. Prosper Harrison Addo, Esq. - Chairman
2. Eva Okyere, Esq. - Vice Chairperson
3. Osei Kwadwo Addo, Esq. - Member
4. W.O.1 J. W. Amoo - Member
5. Alex Kotey - Member
William Bossman - Secretary.

MEDEAMA SC vrs ELMINA SHARKS FC

&
ELMINA SHARKS FC vrs MEDEAMA SC
-
TWO PROTESTS IN RESPECT OF THE GHANA PREMIER LEAGUE
MATCHDAY 8 MATCH PLAYED AT ELMINA

CONSOLIDATION OF THE TWO PROTEST CASES

The two clubs, Medeama SC and Elmina Sharks FC protested against each other in relation to the
same match (the Matchday 8 Ghana Premier League match). The Disciplinary Committee has
therefore consolidated the two Protest cases and hereby provides its decision in respect of the two
Protest cases as follows:

PROCEEDINGS
In accordance with Article 41.5 of the GFA Statutes and Articles 37(10)(a) to 37(10)(d) of the Ghana
Football Association (GFA) General Regulations, the Disciplinary Committee (the Committee) did
not require the presence of the parties but considered all the statements filed by the parties:
a) the depositions of Medeama SC (the Petitioner) and Elmina Sharks FC (the Respondent)
in respect of the Protest filed by Medeama SC against Elmina Sharks FC;

b) the depositions of Elmina Sharks FC (the Cross-Petitioner) and Medeama SC (the Cross-
Respondent) in respect of the Protest filed by Elmina Sharks FC against Medeama SC;

c) the official video of the match; and

d) the official reports of the match officials and all other relevant documentation.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

CASE OF MEDEAMA SC (PROTEST BY MEDEAMA SC)

Medeama Sporting Club (the Petitioner) protested against Elmina Sharks Football Club (the
Respondent) “for causing acts responsible for the abrupt end of their Matchday 8
fixture between the parties” played on Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at Elmina contrary to
Article 34(1)(b) of the GFA General Regulations and Article 31 of the GFA Disciplinary Code.

1|Page
 The Petitioner stated that the match travelled the first 45 minutes with the score at (0-0)
draw. The Petitioner further stated that:

“in the course of the movement of the teams and officials to the dressing
rooms during recess, some unruly „well built body‟ home team supporters
forced their way and overpowered the few security officers manning the glass
door at the side of the home team‟s dressing room and attacked the referee to
the floor instantly with blood gushing out of his head”.

According to the Petitioner, the Match Commissioner and the few police officers around
called in the paramedics who carried the referee away for medical attention. Medeama SC
claimed that the incident happened “right at the main entrance of the dressing rooms”.

Medeama SC claimed that “the results of these acts of assault and battery by
uncontrolled unruly supporters of Elmina Sharks FC generated fear, panic, insecurity
and made the stadium unsafe”.

Medeama SC stated that the centre referee, Nuhu Liman could not return to continue with
the second half of the match. According to Medeama SC:

“the teams stayed on the almost 1 hour 44 minutes after which the Match
Commissioner (MC) and the other match officials invited the two captains and
called off the match citing insecurity among other things”.

The Petitioner contended that the Respondent failed woefully to control their supporters,
again failed to provide adequate security before, during and after the game which resulted to
the abrupt end of the match in violation of the regulations of the GFA. The Petitioner stated
that it shall rely on the official match reports of the Referee and the Match Commissioner.

The Petitioner consequently, demanded match points and the full application of sanctions
including cost against Elmina Sharks FC.

DEFENCE OF ELMINA SHARKS FC

The Respondent in their Statement of Defence to the Protest has no merits and ought to be
dismissed. The Respondent urged the Disciplinary Committee to watch the match video.

Elmina Sharks FC stated that the club made arrangement for adequate security and 40
security personnel were deployed to provide security for the match. The Respondent claimed
the stadium have not had security issues.

The Respondent countered the facts as stated by the Petitioner by stating facts in their
protest. Elmina Sharks FC pointed to the fact that the match officials would have resumed
the match but for the refusal of the Petitioner to continue with the match.

The Respondent consequently pleaded for the replay of the match.

CASE OF ELMINA SHARKS FC (CROSS PROTEST BY ELMINA SHARKS FC)

The Cross-Petitioner, Elmina Sharks FC protested against Medeama SC (the Respondent)
for positioning themselves in such a way as to render the progress of the game impossible
and thereby responsible for the abrupt end of the match contrary to Article 34(1)(b), 34(2),
34(5) and 19(8) of the GFA General Regulations.

According to Elmina Sharks FC, during recess of the match, the referee Nuhu Liman
sustained an injury in the head and the Match Commissioner informed the team that the
referee could not continue with the match,

2|Page
 The Cross-Petitioner quoted Article 19(8) of the General Regulation and stated that as
required by the said regulation, “the fourth referee took the place of the centre referee
and together with the two Assistant Referees and the Match Commissioner they
march to the field of play to continue with the match”.

According to the Cross-Petitioner, the fourth referee called off the match on the field of play
claiming that Medeama SC was unable to continue with the match due stating long delay in
restarting the second half as their reason.

Elmina Sharks FC went further enumerated a number of telephone calls made by the Match
Commissioner and incidents which the club claim were missing from the Match
Commissioner’s report when it was read at Premier League Board meeting held on April 19,
2018 to the club’s surprise.

Elmina Sharks FC claimed that the Match Commissioner failed to report that Medeama SC
refused to play which according to them caused the abrupt end of the match. The Elmina
Sharks FC requested for personal hearing and a review of the video of the match.

The Cross-Petitioner consequently demanded that Medeama SC should forfeit the match by
the application of Article 34(1)(a) of the GFA General Regulations and that the match points
should be awarded in favour of Elmina Sharks FC.

DEFENCE TO CROSS PROTEST BY MEDEAMA SC

Medeama SC (the Cross-Respondent) in their Statement of Defence to the Protest stated
that the Protest has no merit and ought to be dismissed.

Medeama SC repeated the content of the Statement of Case in the protest the club lodged
against Elmina Sharks FC. The Cross-Respondent further referred the Committee to Tweets
from Dr. Nduom, Dr. Nduom Facebook and a Press Release of Elmina Sharks FC and stated
that the accounts thereof were incorrect but fabrication.

According to Medeama FC, the abrupt end of the match was caused by supporters of Elmina
Sharks FC.

The Cross-Respondent consequently demanded the match points and the full application of
sanctions including cost against Elmina Sharks FC.

REPLY BY ELMINA SHARKS FC

In the Reply, Elmina Sharks FC stated that Medeama SC had admitted the fact of the 4th
Referee and two Assistant Referees marched unto the field of play after the long recess and
the calling of the two captains.

Elmina Sharks FC contended that Medeama SC insisted they would not continue with the
match citing the long delay and therefore they were responsible the abrupt end of the match..

FINDINGS AND GROUNDS OF THE DECISION

It is very clear from the foregoing that the two protests are the opposite of each other in terms of the
contents of the Statement of Case and the Statement of Defence vice versa in both protests.

The Committee finds as follows from the match reports and the video of the match and the three
sittings held on this matter:

3|Page
 a. That the Centre Referee Nuhu Liman was hurt (head injury with blood oozing out) while
on his way to the dressing room at half time (subject of a Misconduct Case against
Elmina Sharks FC).

b. That at the hearing Center Referee Liman said he did not see what object hit his head
but that Assistant 2 Joseph Sey told him (even though per his report claimed that he
“was hit by a stone from the top where the supporters of the home team was
stationed”.

c. That the Center Referee received first aid treatment but could not continue with the
match because he said he was dizzy and wanted to be taken to the hospital.

d. The Center referee was driven to the Hospital as requested and then to the Police
Station (note that the referee report ended there with these words – I was at the Police
station when the reserve referee, the Assistant referee and the Match
Commissioner met me there. They told me that the match could not continue
because their safety was threatened. They feared that what happened to me will
happen to them too).

Evidence from official video

e. That after the 15 minutes rest period, the players and the 7 officials on the team sheets
return to the playing field without the match officials.

f. That after sometime, 4th Referee Daniel Dorgbetor, Assistant Referee 1 Rahman Salifu,
Assistant Referee 2 Joseph Sey and Match Commissioner William Gidiglo returned to the
to the field of play.

g. That team officials of both clubs who were not on the Team Sheet (Patrick Akoto and
James Essifie, CEO of Medeama SC and Elmina Sharks FC General Manager, George
Wiredu) followed the match officials into the inner parameter. (the conduct of the
officials of the two clubs is subject to a summon by the Disciplinary Committee for
bringing the game into disrepute.

h. That the match officials after a while moved unto the field of play.

i. That the officials of both clubs and the Omanhene of Elmina Sharks FC went unto the
playing field and were seen moving about to the Match Commissioner and the 4th
Referee.

j. That 4th referee moved about on the field of play and held a number of meetings with
captains of both clubs, the match commissioner and finally whistled for the end of the
match after waiting on the field of play for over 15 minutes.

k. That the 4th Referee did not write any Match Report (the conduct of the 4 match
officials is subject a summons by the Disciplinary Committee for bring the game
into disrepute).

l. That the match officials upon questioning said they went to the field to calm the
supporters and also to inform the two captains of their decision to end the match. These
was contrary to what was depicted in the video.

The two cases raise a number of crucial issues as to the extent and scope of the obligation imposed
by the relevant Regulations of the GFA on home clubs to provide adequate security at match
venues as well as the condition for ordering a match to be stopped.

4|Page
Both Medeama SC and Elmina Sharks FC have stated that their opponent should suffer forfeiture
the match.

Article 34(1)(a) of the GFA General Regulations states:

“A team commits an offence punishable by forfeiture of a match where that
team walks off the field of play; or refuses to continue play”.

Article 34(1)(b) of the GFA General Regulations reads:

“A team commits an offence punishable by forfeiture of a match where that
team positions itself in such a way as to render the progress of the game
impossible; or the player (s) or supporter(s) of the team initiates an act
responsible for the abrupt end of the match”

The Committee agrees that the issue about security against Elmina Sharks FC was first in time to
the question of the alleged ending of the match by Medeama SC. The Committee will therefore
consider that question of security first.

This Committee wishes to state very clearly that before a match commences, it is the Match
Commissioner who is in charge because he or she is cloth with certain powers and responsibilities
under Article 19(9) of the GFA General Regulations. In reference to this instant matter, Article
19(9)(e) thereof in particular is very instructive.

Article 19(9)(e) of the GFA General Regulations reads:

“The Match Commissioner may, if he DEEMS IT NECESSARY (emphasise ours)
for the security of the Referee or the visiting team decide not to have the match
played until his instructions are carried out, but once the match is started, it is
exclusively the prerogative of the Referee to suspend or end the match for any
of the reasons in Law 5 of the Laws of the Game”.

It is clear therefore that it is only the Match Commissioner who must determine the level of security
for a match and order any instructions for the home club to carry out before he sanctions the start of
the match. However, once the referee starts the match it is only the referee who can suspend or end
the match.

Indeed, on the matter of security and its enforcement, it has been determined by the Appeal
Committee of the GFA in the case of King Faisal FC vrs Cape Coast Mysterious Dwarfs FC dated
April 16, 2016 as follows:
“Undoubtedly, the above-stated provisions place an obligation on the home
club to provide adequate security at match venues to ensure not only that the
match is played in a safe, secure and sound environment, but also to ensure
the safety of match officials, visiting clubs and their officials”.

“However, it must be noted that it is common knowledge that security at GFA

sanctioned matches are provided usually by the police and/or other state
security institutions and not by private persons or institutions whose loyalty,
commitment professional integrity, neutrality and impartiality in their conduct
is or perceived to be doubtful. To this extent, the nature of obligation imposed
on the home club is to make reasonably necessary arrangements to procure
the presence of adequate security at match venues”.

Besides making the necessary arrangements, it must be noted that the clubs
do not have any direct control as to the conduct and operational capabilities
of the security institutions.

Accordingly, in our opinion, if all reasonably necessary arrangements are

found to have been made by a home club, but for any reason beyond its

5|Page
 control the expected security detail fail to avail themselves at match venues,
then it would be highly unjust and unfair to punish a home club for such
failure. In our view, in making a determination as to whether a home club has
discharged its obligation under the said security provision articles, each case
must be considered on its facts”.

It must be noted that the lack of security or the inadequacy thereof does not automatically lead to
forfeiture of a match and that each case shall be determined on its own merit.

In the instant case, the facts show that the arrangements were made but according to the referee
report a (one) stone hit his head (which Elmina Sharks FC doubts). This is subject of a misconduct
charge whose decision is yet to be released). The referee was received first aid and requested to
be taken to the hospital without ending the match. The referee own report stated that the match
was ended by the 4th referee and the other who reported it to him later at the police station. Indeed,
when the video was showed to the referee he was shocked that the rest of the match officials
returned to the field of play after he had left to the hospital.

The Committee now averts its attention to the protest of Elmina Sharks FC against Medeama SC. It
is the position of this Committee that, the match did not end when the referee was hurt. It is the
finding of the Committee that the match did not end and the 4th referee took charge of the match
and returned to the field of play for the second half though he delayed in his return.

The action of the 4th referee is consistent with Article 19(8) of the GFA General Regulations of the
GFA. The said regulation reads:
“A qualified Referee, other than the officiating Referee and Assistants, shall
be appointed in each match as fourth referee. His duties shall be to take the
place of the officiating referee or any of the assistant referees who either
through absence, indisposition or other cause, may retire in the course of the
game”.

It must be noted however that the duty to continue with the game by a referee or a 4th referee is
depended on the security environment at the time and place. In the instant matter, the 4th referee
took charge of the game in the dressing room area and if he concludes that the safety of the match
officials or any of the match officials does not warrant the continuation of the match he was at
liberty to end the match there and then.

In this matter, the 4th referee did not end the match. The 4th referee rather continued with the match
and returned to the inner parameter and even went to the playing field in all readiness for the
continuation for the continuation of the match.

Elmina Sharks FC had alleged that the away club placed itself in such a position to render the
match impossible to progress because the captain of Medeama SC refused to continue with the
match when the 4th Referee met the two captains on the field of play.

The match officials failed in the discharge of their responsibilities leading to this mess for all the
parties. The match officials who should know better rather provided the intervening circumstances
which led to the abrupt end of the match.

Although the 4th Referee could be seen in the video of the match meeting with the captains
of the two teams, it must be made very clear to all and sundry that:
a. a club cannot insist whether a match should or should not start due to the
absence or inadequate security because it is only the Match Commissioner who
is cloth with the power to make that determination and/or decision.
b. once a match starts, a club cannot insist or demand the end the match.
c. it is the sole discretion of the match referee to end a match.

6|Page
The 4th Referee and the Match Commissioner did not distinguish themselves very well as required
by the GFA regulations. It is view of this Committee that the match officials could have started the
2nd half since there was no danger or supporter misbehaviour at the time to warrant the abrupt end
of the match.

It must be stated that the 4th referee failed in his responsibility to ensure that only the 22 players
remained on the field of play and that both set of officials and reserve players were well positioned
at the bench, Match commissioner at his desk and all other unapproved persons were out of the
inner parameter as required by Article 23(4)(a) of the GFA General Regulations.

The Articles states as follows:

”The players accompanied by not more than seven (7) officials of each club,
whose names shall be registered on the match sheet, shall come out of the
dressing rooms preceded by the match officials. The referee, the assistant
referees, and the 22 competing players shall then proceed directly on to the
pitch for the commencement of the game while the Match Commissioner, club
officials and the substitute players proceed to their respective sitting places”.

In fact, it was the 4th referee who without any security threat, allowed unaccredited persons unto
the field of play and finally whistle for the end of the match after conducting various meetings with
the captains of the clubs, match commissioner and club officials at various times on the playing
field in full glare of the supporters.

At no point did the 4th referee place the ball at the centre spot and a team refused to kick the ball or
refused to play the second half of the match. Therefore in the instant circumstances, it is our
position of the Committee that it would be unjust and unfair to blame any of the teams for the
abrupt end of the match though they contributed minimally to the mishap that took place at the said
match.

DECISIONS

The Committee therefore makes the following decisions:

1. That the Protest brought by Medeama SC against Elmina Sharks FC is hereby

dismissed.

2. That the Protest brought by Elmina Sharks FC against Elmina Sharks FC is hereby
dismissed.

3. That the Committee hereby orders a replay of the Matchday 8 match and
consequently orders the Premier League Board (PLB) to reschedule the said
match to be played at a specified date (given the clubs the required notice as
required by the GFA regulations) at the Cape Coast Stadium.

4. That the Committee hereby orders Referees Appointment Committee of the GFA to
appoint a new set of match officials for the rescheduled match.

5. That the GFA is hereby ordered to pay Medeama SC an amount of Three Thousand
Ghana Cedis (GHc3,000.00) as Transportation Support for the match, before the
two clubs play in the rescheduled match and that the GFA shall not spend any
other amount on the match.

6. That should any party be dissatisfied with or aggrieved by this Decision, the party
has within three (3) days of being notified of this Ruling to appeal to the Appeals
Committee of the Ghana Football Association (See Article 37(11) of the General
Regulations of the GFA).
7|Page
 Prosper Harrison Addo, Esq.
Chairman, Disciplinary Committee
Tuesday, May 22, 2018

8|Page