A dark cloud is hovering over the country’s relationship with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as the arbitrary deadline for the passage of the Nations Sports Bill set by IOC nears.
The government of Ghana has called this arbitrary deadline an affront to national sovereignty and clear example of IOC favoritism, double dealing and “moving the goal post” now that Ghana is in compliance with IOC’s rules and regulations .
Indeed the Sports authorities have called the bluff of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) over threats to sanction it should it fail to promulgate into Law the New Sports Bill by the end of the year but the call might have come 15 months late.
When the IOC first came up with its Road Map to get the country in compliance with its regulations Olympic body following claims of third party interference at in the Ghana Olympic committee (GOC) congress last year, the government was caught between a rock and a hard place.
First, existing interpretation of the national sports law (SMDC 54, LI 1088) at the time of the GOC congress indicates that the Ministry of Sports had the mandate to appoint officers to various national federations.
Keep in mind that this interpretation of the law has been used by previous governments on both sides of the political aisle; NPP and NDC. Indeed, in November 2008, the then minister for sports from the NPP government, Hon. O.B. Amoah, cancelled a scheduled congress by the Ghana Athletics Association based on the latter interpretation of the law.
Second, contrary to logic, IOC declared the existing practice of appointing officers to the various national federations as illegal and yet, insisted that the old GOC executives who came to power via the same mechanism be allowed to stay in office.
It seems in the interest of sports development and perhaps due to internal pressure to resolve the impasse, the government of Ghana agreed to what seemed at the time a good solution i.e., the Road Map.
However, on hind sight, it seems that by agreeing to the so called Road Map in the interest of sports development, Ghana sold its sovereign rights to an organization that, on this particular issue, has little interest in upholding its own ideals of fair play and equity.
How else does one explain the IOC’s doubling dealing on the issue of appointments’? If the process is flawed, then neither the old executives nor the new executives are valid.
Thirdly, how does one explain IOC’s insistence on Ghana passing a new sports law when all relevant national associations are now in compliance with their various international federations concerning election of officials?
Fourthly, why this insistence on passage on a new national sports law when IOC’s own constitution does not give it the power or justification for making such a demand on member countries whose various national associations are in compliance with their international federations?
Now, it seems Ghana’s decision to conform to international standards despite the irrational stance by IOC on the issue of GOC leadership has come back to haunt it. By Ghana agreeing at the offset to allow an illegitimate GOC executive body (according IOC’s own rules) to lead the process of congress, IOC now believes it can also dictate the nature of, when, and how national laws in Ghana should be passed.
HISTORY OF GOC IMPASSE
For those of you who are strangers in Jerusalem, the GOC saga goes like this: The then GOC administration under B.T. Baba sought to prolong their stay in office months after the new government took office in 2009 by calling for congress on 30th June, 2009. The delegates for the latter congress would have been executives of the various national associations who were appointed by the previous government. This would have been in direct violation of the IOC rules and regulations given what we now know.
In an effort to meet the congress date set by B.T. Baba, the then new government exercised its authority to appoint new executives just as previous governments had done. This meant that most of the delegates who ended up attending the GOC congress were newly appointed executives of the various national associations.
It is important to point out that these new executives were technically no different from the previous executives who were originally invited by B.T. Baba to congress. Both sets were appointed by the government of Ghana.
The only difference it seems is that the former (old) executives were perceived to be supporters of B.T. Baba.
When the day of congress came, proceedings were executed according to the GOC constitution until the new appointed leaders of the Associations conveyed much to the annoyance of B.T. Baba who arbitrarily tried to terminate congress alleging “third party influence.”
To the bewilderment of most seasoned sports observers in Ghana, IOC ruled the congress invalid but pledged its full support for the B.T. Baba executive board.
Most independent observers thought IOC would have followed the IAAF’s model by refusing to recognize both parties because of the flawed process but work in a neutral fashion to help Ghana make the necessary changes.
Rather, IOC threw its weight behind B.T. Baba while the government of Ghana backed Prof Dodoo who was elected as GOC president during the disputed congress. In short both IOC and the government of Ghana chose to support two different sets of executive bodies neither of whom were legit according to IOC rules.
The IOC continues to regard the old administration led by B. T. Baba as the legitimate GOC while the government backs that newly elected Professor Francis Dodoo administration.
Is IOC a Neutral Party?
As the parent body of the GOC, the IOC was expected to act in a neutral manner as ascribed in the Olympic Charter. Perhaps it was with such conviction that President John Evans Atta Mils invited a delegation from the Olympic governing body to the country last year.
Sadly, IOC’s actions in this matter have been far from has been nothing like the fair play it espouses. Ghana has met the core tenets of the Road Map agreed to in November 2009 including the key sticking point i.e., election of executives at the national association level.
Yet IOC inexplicably is making, at best, questionable demands that infringe on the sovereignty of the nation. Why is IOC insisting on passage of a new national sports law when at the end of the day, IOC rules and regulations supersede national laws as far as GOC governance is concerned?
What is the value of a new sports law to resolving the GOC impasse if the various national associations are now in compliance with IOC regulations under the revised interpretation of existing law? Ghana Football association has been going to congress under the existing law since 2005. Technically, whether or not we have a national law that allows for elective office is irrelevant; IOC made that abundantly clear when the saga began by its choice of words and actions.
However, the benefit of having a national law that mandates elective office will make it easy for Ghana to comply with IOC and other international federations rules. Yet, it is Ghana’s sole right to determine the nature and timing of any new sports law. This is true as long the current law allows the various national federations, and by extension GOC, to be in compliance international expectations.
It is ironic that the same institution that claimed autonomy and the right to protect and ensure that processes laid forth in its constitution are followed now demands that a sovereign nation forgo the same right.
They have clearly taken sides in the impasse choosing to send official communication to the government through the Old GOC administration.
It is noteworthy to mention that similar disputes in the past have been resolved on the continent by International organisations quite amicably.
One that comes to mind is the situation that prevailed at the Ghana Athletics Association last year.
After a dispute arose as to who constituted the leadership of the GAA following the appointment of new officers by the government, the International Association of Athletics Federations maintained a neutral role and only recognised the Secretary General of the organisation and sent all official communications through him until an IAAF backed Congress elected a new leadership for the GAA.
CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS
Since IOC was told that the government was trying to take over all national associations and by extension GOC, iIt must have come as a shock to the IOC to them when most of the National Sports Associations successfully went to congress and elected leaderships that are recognised by their respective International Federations. In fact, some of the International Federations actively participated in the process and paid for the elective general assembly i.e., congress.
To regain its leverage since Ghana had surprisingly successfully addressed the core issue in the GOC impasse, IOC’s has now changed its focus to the passage of national laws. In addition, it is still insisting that until the law is passed, GOC should be led by an individual whose presidency achieved through the benefit of appointment onto a national association. This move comes across as very mischievous.
Now that the national associations have duly elected officials, how can IOC insist that they should be led by a GOC executive board that came into power through the process of “illegal” appointments?
Questions to ponder?
So now that Ghana is
in compliance with IOC rules concerning elections at the national association level, why is IOC insisting on saddling Ghana with a GOC executive committee president who came and stayed in power for 13 years using a process that IOC says is illegal? Why did IOC not take IAAF’s, approach since both the incumbent executive board and the new executive board were technically illegal according to its rules?
Under which portion of IOC’s constitution does it have the authority to demand that a sovereign nation pass a new national law by a specific date to be part of the Olympic movement? Irrespective of the answer to the last question, is IOC making the latter demand on all member Federations whose national sporting associations have duly elected officers?
Having followed this story closely for the past eighteen months, I’m intrigued to find out the answers to those questions posed. Veteran journalist Kwabena Yeboah perhaps put it best in his article: Baba must prove his critics wrong which was published on Monday, August 23rd 2010.
“You don’t need to overstretch your imagination to appreciate the I.O.C.’s bias. Determined to protect their overbearing influence in the world of sports, the I.O.C. jealously protects their “own” and fiercely rejects any governmental involvement, one they prefer to call “interference”.”
CONCLUSION
According to the IOC’s own communiqué, Ghana is currently in compliance with IOC regulations concerning elective office at the national association level, the one thing that IOC cited as its main reason for intervention. As things stand, IOC has arbitrarily decided to change the goal post and is now demanding the passage of the New Sports Bill into Law before the end of the year.
This is an over reach and infringement on national sovereignty by IOC. The government it seems is in no mood for additional IOC antics and has called IOC’s bluff.
What seems clear to me is that in retrospect, the Ghana should have withdrawn from the IOC, invited IOC and other international federations to monitor the process of realigning national associations to comply with international standards. Instead, we deferred to IOC who it seems had no interest in a fair process.
None of us can pretend that politics does not exist in sports but what most decent people abhor is when sports politics is played outside the boundaries of existing rules and regulations. In short, it called cheating. Is IOC trying to cheat Ghana by violating its own rules and regulations? You be the judge.
