The recent decision by the Sports Disputes Tribunal (SDT) to disband and recommend formation of a Normalisation Committee was a well calculated move.
The SDT Chairman John Ohaga wanted to create a power vacuum to be accommodated in the Normalization Committee.
The move was meant for him to be in communication with Fifa in order to gain inroads into the world football governing body through the ruling.
Ohaga used the give and take decision where most of the decisions were in favour of the federation so as to seem fair and then nail the final nail on FKF’s coffin by disbanding the federation by claiming that it’s National Executive Committee (NEC) term was over and to justify the formation of a Normalisation Committee.
Ohaga is on record of causing similar scenarios in the dispute between Sportpesa and Betway over the sponsorship of AFC Leopards.
In that dispute he personally oversaw the impasse which was filed and in the tribunal and transferred to the office of his law firm.
Later, in the dispute pitting two warring Kenya Swimming Federation (KSF), Ohaga formed a Normalisation Committee which he chairs.
Last Tuesday, the Sports Disputes Tribunal (SDT) chose to narrow down on eligibility rules.
Eligibility rules are made to form the Electoral code to be used to guide voters and candidates on the criteria and conditions for the elections process.
On December 3rd, when the tribunal overruled the FKF elections and cancelled it faulted the federation on the electoral code and composition of the electoral board.
The federation, then undertook the necessary steps to make amends by complying with SDT ruling for fresh polls.
The federation organised public participation forums where the proposed electoral code was discussed and endorsed entirely or with amendments in some areas.
In his ruling, SDT Chairman John Ohaga said the tribunal was satisfied that the public participation exercise met the threshold.
Ohaga then contradicts the tribunal by saying the eligibility rules were wanting and therefore cancelling the polls for the second time.
If the tribunal was satisfied with the public participation process meaning that the code was discussed by the football stakeholders who recommended it, then why go against their voices.
Is it the work of the court to decide for stakeholders what they have to do when there has been no complainant.
What should have been questioned was if the process met the FKF constitutional electoral threshold.
The federation issued noticed to it’s members for a public participation exercise which was given a one month period.
After that the FKF executive convened a general meeting which is the federation’s governing Council which is it’s supreme decision making organ that was properly convened and constituted to discuss the draft before passing to set the stage for the elections.
During and after the process of public participation, no one complained to the federation or even file a case against the code by either saying their views were not taken into account or complain that the code was forced on them.
Ohaga’s ruling seems to be laced with malice as when he cancelled the the polls scheduled for December 7th, for the first time he never raised an issue with eligibility rules in the electoral code.
Ohaga’s areas of interest were the composition of the FKF Electoral board and public participation to discuss the electoral code.
The same electoral code that Ohaga faulted over public participation is the one which was presented for public participation a process which the tribunal said was done accordingly.