Carlos Kambaekwa
Windhoek-Namibia’s oldest sporting football club, Tigers, has told the country’s football governing body, the Namibia Football Association (NFA), in no uncertain terms where to get off.
New Era Sport is in possession of a strongly worded letter addressed to the NPL chief administrator Tovey Hoebeb, in response to a communication from the NPL with subject matter, “Notice and Invitation to an urgent BoG meeting”.
“Ingwe” as Tigers is known, seriously questions the resolutions taken at the NFA Exco/NPL Interim Committee joint meeting held on April 28.
Tigers contest the misplaced perception that the NPL Interim Committee had an audience with the NFA Executive, questioning the composition and legality of the NFA “Ghost” Executive.
The club’s argument is based on the understanding that the NFA Executive, as defined by the statutes under article 33, should consist of eleven members: president, first and second vice presidents, six members (at least one of which shall be female), chairperson NPL ex officio, and one representative chairperson of the nationwide first division elected from amongst the chairpersons of the three streams.
The said gathering only had four genuine NFA executives in attendance in the shape of the association’s president Frans Mbidi, his two deputies Naftal Kalangi and Croocks Nunuheb as well as executive member Roger Kambatuku.
Two of the other attendants at the gathering, NFA secretary-general Barry Rukoro and his secretary Jessica Ngoandu are not members of the executive organ.
Tigers further argue that the agenda for the disputed meeting between representatives of the NFA Executive, its SG and the NPL Interim Committee was to provide feedback.
In the absence of any other agenda points, the meeting could not pass any resolution as alleged by Hoebeb.
Article 53 Ad-hoc Committees of the NFA statutes states that the executive committee may, if necessary, create ad-hoc committees for special duties and a limited period of time.
The executive committee shall appoint a chairman, deputy chairman and the members whose duties and functions shall be defined in special regulations drawn up by the executive committee. The ad hoc committee shall report directly to the executive committee.
Article 20 Bodies (of the Association) clearly defines that the various bodies within the NFA and ad hoc committees are committees that should be created within the domain of the NFA and within the bodies of members of the NFA and or for the NPL.
Article 17 Independence of Members and their bodies explicitly states that each member shall manage its affairs independently and with no influence from third parties.
The NFA and its executive committee are not exempted from this article and thus unacceptably interfering in the management and internal affairs through the creation of the purported ad hoc committee.
The club also correctly points out that the NFA Executive did not meet after the said meeting to create such a committee and neither did it appoint members, nor did the exco pass the special regulations defining the duties and functions as provided therein.
Notwithstanding the above, Ingwe is convinced the executive committee has absolutely no domain over the NPL.
In conclusion, the aggrieved club took serious issue with Hoebeb’s interpretation of the unfolding events at the said meeting, accusing the under-fire football administrator of misleading the clubs because his version of events is not the true reflection of what transpired, nor were there any resolutions passed.
The BoG meeting on the 2nd of May 2017 did not have the requisite powers and authority to convert the NPL Interim Committee into the NFA ad hoc committee as alleged in Hoebeb’s letter.
“This is unconstitutional in terms of both the NPL and NFA constitutions and any conduct on the part of your office aimed at implementing the purported resolutions will be challenged vigorously by our club,” charged Tigers in the three-page statement signed by the club’s operations and football club representative on the BoG, Kenny Angula.