I followed the events leading to the abortive Congress on Saturday, April 5, 2025, which continue to generate discourse nationwide, particularly among football enthusiasts. However, other engagements restrained me from commenting promptly. Better late than never, they say, though. The rancour that has become the hallmark of the largest and most crucial football gathering of the year was unfortunate but unsurprising to some of us, as coming events, they say, cast their shadows. Sadly, the SLFA failed to stitch it to save nine, whether by design or default. The rest, as they say, is history.
A few weeks ago, I authored a piece on Article 21(2) of the SLFA Constitution (the “Constitution”) in which, like a soothsayer, I sounded the alarm bell of a potential conflict if the issue of delegates, especially regarding district representations, remained unresolved. Lo and behold, my advice fell on deaf ears, and the consequences have been well publicized, albeit portraying the football family as a group of miscreants who cannot conduct themselves with dignity. This scar on the conscience of football stakeholders can largely be attributed to the Secretariat and members of the Executive Committee (the “EXCOs”) who abdicated their responsibilities, creating a leadership lacuna and uncertainty. This vacuum created during that critical period helped fuel the turmoil.
The EXCOs prepare and convene Congress, per Article 34(b) of the Constitution. However, once they convene (the date and venue are agreed upon), the Secretariat, headed by the Acting General Secretary (AGS), Mohamed Benson Bawoh, superintends Congress preparations by communicating relevant information and documents to members as appropriate. In preparing the delegates’ list, the AGS, supported by precedent, would request and receive the names of representatives from members before Congress. Where no ulterior motives are served, best practice would demand that the delegates’ list be made available to members at least 72 hours before the Congress convenes to avoid controversy and amicably resolve those contested. But when the delegates’ list becomes a holy grail for some EXCOs, those nominated by their memberships, and the police, it would be reasonable to indict the AGS as acting in bad faith.
That said, it almost beggars’ belief that we cannot ascertain Congress delegates despite clearly established Constitutional provisions and precedents. Notwithstanding my reservations about including some members, Article 21(1) adequately settles this issue – regions, districts, clubs, coaches, referees, and veterans. Without more, a simple request to the heads, as the face of their entities, will produce a delegate list in no time. As I noted in an earlier piece, if stakeholders within those entities no longer trust their heads to lead, there are legal procedures to oust them. However, disingenuously misrepresenting the law to bypass them to suit political ambitions is undoubtedly a recipe for anarchy, which unfortunately now appears to be the modus operandi in our football polity. The insincerity stinks, and sadly, those who used to tout much-vaunted integrity have now been exposed as accomplices in this ignoble act.
The contention regarding the delegate from the Premier League club, Diamond Stars, is laughable and incomprehensible. According to the Constitution, Premier League clubs should be represented by either the chairman or his representative, and evidence of this must be produced upon request. I saw a letter trending on social media platforms on the morning of the Congress, where the chairman of Diamond Stars appeared to have appointed someone other than Tamba Kaigbanja, whose name had initially appeared on the delegates’ list. If that letter is authentic, the AGS owes us an explanation. Who submitted Tamba Kaigbanja’s name to represent Diamond Stars? He must come clean to resuscitate his already comatose reputation, which appears to be on life support.
One consequence of Benson’s failure to provide members with the list is that delegates, the shareholder representatives of the company named SLFA, were subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment at the Radisson Blu Hotel. Most slept on couches in the hotel reception for long hours, waiting to be certified for room access, a process that continued until the early hours of the Congress day itself. Another is that it undermined the security arrangement at the venue. According to Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Freetown-West, Sylvester Koroma, if the AGS had provided the delegates’ list, it could have aided their security planning in ensuring a smooth Congress. Without a certified list to the police, they were constrained to barricade the vicinity and grant access only to delegates and accredited observers, as the venue is a hotel. As such, disguised as delegates, hoodlums exploited this situation to cause chaos, and the AGS should bear some responsibility, if not, the greatest.
The EXCOs’ actions were also surprisingly underwhelming. They did not rise to the occasion and demonstrate leadership in the president’s absence. Perhaps even more disappointing is their excuse for failing to proceed with Congress’s business by referencing Article 37(3) of the Constitution. With the most tremendous respect to them, their reading of it is flawed, legally unsound, and misrepresents the law. A simple reading of that article is that he should preside where he attends, including at Congress, EXCO meetings, and any other committee where he is chairman. In other words, the president’s only exclusivity to preside is when he is present at meetings. But to give it a very restrictive interpretation that only the president should, in his absence, no one else, undermines the drafters’ will. It defies common sense and logic.
The best interpretation is made from antecedents. The framers could never have intended to limit presiding at meetings to only the president, whether at Congress or EXCO meetings; it is to the intention that all law applies. Using the word “only” could have been instructive if that were their intention. That is, the provision could have read, “[Only] [t]he President shall preside over the Congress …” even though it would have still been practically challenging. However, the framers knew there would be circumstances where the president might be indisposed to attend. Still, they should not stop the business, whether at Congress or EXCO meetings. Thus, omitting the word “only” allows others to preside whenever the need is occasioned.
Let’s be hypothetical momentarily: the president flies to the Bahamas on the eve of Congress on a pleasure trip. Should Congress be postponed until he returns because no one, other than him, should preside? To stretch it further, he stays there for six months. Should Congress wait for the six months to lapse (unable to attend EXCO meetings, as per Article 37(5)), or until he returns, whichever comes first, before it convenes? With respect, I hold a contrary view. A curious and captious interpretation of the law is to be reproved. It would be imprudent for the framers to have intended to give a non-executive president a carte blanche authority to attend Congress or any other meetings as he pleases, knowing no one else will preside in his absence – a sure path to authoritarianism. If such interpretation were valid, no president would ever be impeached because I doubt any president would preside over Congress knowing they will be impeached.
Furthermore, a strict textualist interpretation of Article 37(3) would question the current administration’s legitimacy. As others have noted, Mr. Alie Commoner Kargbo, the erstwhile second vice president during Madam Isha Johansen’s reign, presided at the Congress that elected them in Makeni in June 2021. If one were to agree to their restrictive interpretation of the said article, which I do not subscribe to anyway, it would be safe to say that in the absence of Madam Isha Johansen presiding, the current EXCOs are not legally elected. I make this submission further relying on Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which states, inter alia, that “Only a Congress that is regularly convened [with Madam Isha Johansen presiding in the Makeni June 2021 Congress] with the standing orders of the Congress has the authority to make a decision.”
Therefore, it would be safe to say that since Madam Isha Johansen did not preside at the Makeni Congress in June 2021, Congress was not “regularly convened.” Accordingly, all decisions made during that Congress, including the elections, are null and void. Hence, again, such interpretation is perilous and has far-reaching and unintended implications.
As noted supra, the EXCOs should have stepped up during that defining moment, especially when they had the numbers – nine of the eleven EXCOs and a quorum from the membership. The president, by absconding from the venue without informing his colleagues, EXCOs, or the delegates present, further strengthens their case to have proceeded. His action is belittling, unconscionable, thoughtless, and contrary to established customs during Congress. It undermines the spirit of collegiality and camaraderie, especially within the EXCO. In addition, it should be noted that the disposition of the law is more potent than that of any man. Therefore, the president’s desertion of Congress in such a manner should be a statutory breach and tantamount to abuse of office, for which there should be consequences. Perhaps unsuspectingly, the EXCOs became co-conspirators when they failed to proceed with Congress accordingly; they could not sail the ship safely to shore after the captain had abandoned the crew at sea. The centre could no longer hold.
The ill-fated April 5 event at Radisson Blu is a litmus test for the current football leadership. One of the tests of leadership is the ability to recognize a problem before it becomes an emergency. They must close ranks and save football for the tens of thousands of our compatriots who passionately follow the game. History will remember them harshly if they were to oversee our retrogression. They should meet quickly, decide on a Congress date and venue, and communicate to the membership to ease tensions and avoid a potential football intifada. They should meet with the security sector, including the police, the Office of National Security, and the army, if needed. They should discuss security-related matters regarding the Congress, emphasizing that only delegates and duly accredited observers will be tolerated anywhere within fifty metres of the Congress venue. Such an arrangement, including a sanitized delegates’ list, will guarantee a successful Congress.
Let me conclude by aligning with others who have expressed deep concern about a potential governance crisis if Congress is not held as quickly as possible, as the current administration’s tenure terminates in about eight weeks. Gauging the current temperature, it’s no brainer that any attempt to prolong this administration’s tenure will not be entertained, and the consequences, without doubt, will be unpleasant. A hitch-free Congress will save us from sliding back into the inglorious abyss of unhealthy political rivalry and relapse. We should resist shenanigans from dictating our country’s football trajectory, as their only interest is the pecuniary benefits they derive from it. I urge those concerned to do that which is right and just for the good of our beautiful game.
May common sense prevail!
