SDT also rules FKF are not in contempt as initially accused and will continue to supervise footballing activities in the country
Football Kenya Federation (FKF) CEO Barry Otieno might serve up to seven years in jail if he is found guilty of perjury.
The administrator is accused of undermining the Sports Disputes Tribunal (SDT) and writing a letter to Fifa dated March 18, asking for protection. However, in a sworn affidavit, the CEO denied the allegations.
There is a consistent allegation that the letter is authentic, and SDT Chairman John Ohaga states the investigative agency will dig into the matter.
“One matter, however, continuous to trouble the Tribunal and this is with respect to the authorship of the letter of 18th March 2020 addressed to Fifa,” read the ruling as obtained by Goal.
“It is the Tribunal’s view that certain aspects of the letter seek to undermine the authority of the Tribunal. The Panel takes cognizance of the fact that Barry Otieno has denied being the author of this letter.”
“The Tribunal, as a statutorily constituted judicial body, has available to it the legal mechanisms in its arsenal to deal with instances where its authority and dignity is undermined…”
“…if Barry Otieno did in fact sign this letter, then he would certainly be guilty of the offence of perjury, the penalty for which is set out inter alia at Section 11 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations, Chapter 15 (penalty for false declaration) and more seriously at Section 108 of the Penal Code, Chapter 63 (Perjury and Subornation of Perjury) and for which the punishment is set out at Section 110 of the Penal Code (imprisonment for seven years).”
The FKF had a sigh of relief as the Tribunal cleared them of any contempt of court doing, emanating from the March 17 ruling that the term of the President and the National Executive Council (NEC) has expired.
“The Tribunal at paragraph 123 of its decision of 17th March 2020, recognized that Article 43(2) of the FKF Constitution 2017 provided that the President of the Federation stays in office until the next president is elected into office.
“It becomes clear, therefore, that the President of the Federation cannot be impeached or accused of contempt in relation to acts or activities undertaken in the ordinary course of carrying out duties and responsibilities which are attendant to this position.
“This include being the spokesman and legal representative of the Federation as well as supervising the work of the secretariat and the relations between FKF and its members and other organizations.”
There was also an order put forward by the challengers who argued the FKF property, assets and bank accounts should be safe guarded since the outgoing officials might vandalize them or misappropriate the funds.
The Tribunal, however, refused to block the current regime from accessing the same stating there was no enough evidence to order for the same.
“We have given consideration to the factual basis put forward…and have been unable to discern any concrete evidence to support the application.
“The evidence offered is based on conjecture and is such that no decision-making body, properly applying its mind to the facts presented to it, could possibly reach the conclusion that the allegations made meet the evidentiary threshold which would require a response from the Federation.
“Not being satisfied that this threshold has been met, it becomes unnecessary to consider the Federation’s response and the application is accordingly, dismissed.”
Be the first to comment