Just when we thought the nation’s troubles with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) were nearing an end, the former President of the now defunct Ghana Olympic Committee (GOC) B. T. Baba has muddied the waters with claims that the proposed amendment to the SMCD 54 (the National Sports Law) does not satisfy the Olympic Charter.
Mr. Baba contends that the New Sports regulation LI 1988 does not guarantee the total independence of the Ghana Olympic Committee because section 42 of the parent law (SMCD 54) still permits the Minister to revise the law and that invalidates everything that the new L.I. seeks to do.
Never mind that any proposed changes to a LI by a minister must be reviewed and approved by parliament. That is, no minister can arbitrarily change an existing legislative instrument without parliamentary oversight.
By Mr. Baba’s logic no law passed in Ghana will be good enough for the IOC because proposed changes can be initiated by an individual.
In a letter addressed to the Subsidiary Legislation Committee of Parliament titled RE: New Sports Regulations, LI 1988, Mr. Baba described the latest action as “mere window dressing by the government.”
This comes after the Ministry of Youth and Sports presented to Parliament a new Legislative Instrument (LI) to replace the old LI 1088 based on the Sports Law SMDC 54 in consonance with the statues of International Federations (IF) and in line with the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) charter.
The new LI mandates democratic elections onto all National Sports Associations in line with their respective International Federations (IF) and by extension the IOC Charter while ensuring autonomy for sports associations in the country.
In the face of the above petition by Mr. Baba, there is a need to take a critical look at the merits and demerits of his case.
1. Does Mr. Baba have the locus to present himself as President of the GOC?
2. Is Mr. Baba’s assertion that section 42 of the parent law (SMCD 54) grants power to arbitrarily change the law a sound interpretation of the law?
3. When IOC gave Ghana the roadmap, did it ask Mr. Baba to supervise and approve the mechanism through which Ghana becomes compliant with the IOC Charter?
(i) MIS-REPRESENTATION BY BABA?
It will be recalled that the IOC suspended Ghana from its organisation on 13th January, 2011 because the country’s sports law does not respect the provisions of the Olympic Charter. Thus, for all practical purposes, Ghana no longer has a national Olympic committee. Neither Ghana nor Mr. Baba can claim such an organization while our “license” is revoked.
So it is very interesting that Mr. Baba presented himself as the President of the Ghana Olympic Committee in his letter to Parliament dated 15th February, 2011. Presenting himself as such seems like a misrepresentation of his current position.
It creates an air of authority that neither Ghana, as a country, or IOC for that manner currently recognizes. Ghana is currently suspended from the Olympic Movement.
Unfortunately Mr. Baba continues to conflate his role in helping to move Ghana sports forward. Throughout this saga, he has portrayed himself the IOC gatekeeper in Ghana and continues to do so.
What else explains his rational for copying (CC) IOC on his letter to parliament? At best, it demonstrates his limited understanding of Ghana’s predicament with IOC and his role as things currently stand.
At worse, this could be interpreted as ploy to intimidate members of parliament into believing IOC tacitly disapproves of the manner in which Ghana intends to get back into compliance.
IS SECTION 42 OF THE SMCD 54 A BARRIER TO IOC COMPLIANCE?
Again it is Mr. Baba position that section 42 of the SMCD 54, which permits the Minister to revise the sports law, invalidates everything about the new Legislative instrument (LI).
Indeed, Mr. Baba suggests on page three of his petition that the new regulation does not debar the minister from making future proposals under section 42 of the SMCD 54 to replace the new LI 1988!
Again, Mr. Baba’s premise and logic is seriously flawed. First, section 42 of SMCD 54 only gives the minister the power to propose revisions. Almost all sports ministers and or ministries in the modern world lead the initiative to revise national sports law when and if required.
The power to initiate or propose revision does not amount to arbitrary changes to the law whenever a minister chooses. Indeed, similar to other democratic nations, Ghana’s constitution provides the necessary checks and balances.
Any proposed LI changes, including those related to sports, must go through parliament and be approved.
They also typically pass through the Attorney General’s office, as that is where they are drafted. During the time they are laid in parliament they also offer the opportunity to stakeholders and citizens to comment on the law (as in the current opportunity Mr. Baba is taking advantage of now).
Thus the ultimate power to cause change lies with parliament not the sports minister. This is such a fundamental misunderstanding of the legislative process from Mr. Baba’s end.
It is also erroneous for Mr. Baba to suggest that a revision will be useful only insofar as it can never ever be changed. Not even IOC’s own constitution is immune to change. Or, will Mr. Baba in the near future accuse the IOC of window dressing if IOC’s President, as an individual, proposes constitutional change for consideration at its general assembly?
Effectively, Mr. Baba seems to want a law that can, subsequently, never be changed. Even the entrenched clauses in our national constitution can be changed, albeit after a very rigorous process. How can we write a law that can never be changed?
After what the nation has gone through since the 30th June, 2009 GOC elections, it is almost unthinkable that a particular political group or a law maker would propose reverting to the old Legislative Instrument, or to a situation where Ghana once again appoint officers to associations, if the New LI is passed into Law.
Moreover, Mr. Baba’s attempt to link Ghana’s suspension by the IOC to our inability to pass a New Sports Bill is, at the very least, quite strange.
The veteran administrator implicitly suggested that because the IOC suspension letter explicitly faulted Ghana for not passing the Sports Bill (despite our promise to do so), any attempt to change our legislation that doesn't involve the Sports Bill will not satisfy the IOC’s conditions.
However, a look at the IOC’s correspondence with the Ministry of Youth and Sports, and in particular the “Road Map”, reveals that it is the language of our current sports legislation that is problematic (and they likely explicitly referred to the Sports Bill only because the former Minister of Youth and Sports erroneously promised that it would be passed by December 2010).
But, what if Ghana acceded to his wishes and wrote a law that could not be changed by anyone and, five years from now, IOC revises their charter in a way that requires our law to be revised again? How would we then revise the law that we have cemented in unchangeable stone? We would be stuck.
The revised LI under review in Parliament right now, does all things the IOC has asked Ghana to do. The process of revising an LI requires parliamentary oversight and approval.
Thus, no minister can wake up one morning and arbitrarily decide to the change the sports regulations in Ghana. Mr. Baba need not be afraid of that, if that is really what his concern is.
CONTROVERSY OVER B.T. BABA’S ROLE IN ASSOCIATION ELECTIONS
One other issue which Mr. Baba continues to use as an additional reason for not accepting the new legislation is the issue of supervision of the recent elections for the various associations following the IOC’s intervention.
First of all, no matter how many times Mr. Baba goes back to this, it is no longer an issue of contention for IOC, and this is proven by the IOC’s letter. Indeed, their letter of 13th January, 2011, suspending Ghana makes absolutely no mention of this, and only refers to the need to revise our sports legislation.
In his letter to parliament, he stated that the IOC Road Map recommended that elections be conducted democratically and supervised by the executive of the GOC. The assertion of supervision by the executive of GOC is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
In Section 2a of the IOC roadmap letter of November 25, 2009, the IOC explicitly states “the NFs (i.e., the associations) should hold elections of their leaders as soon as possible under the supervision of their respective International Federations (IF)”.
What this means is that the Ghana Hockey Association, for example, was supposed to conduct elections under the auspices of the FIH (Federation of International Hockey), not the GOC.
The IOC in section 2b concedes that “recognition by the IFs is the condition for being considered legitimate within the Olympic Movement”. In other words, recognition of a Ghanaian sports association is the purview of the International Federation for that sport not IOC. Are we to believe Mr. Baba has the power to claim a mandate that even IOC considers outside its purview?
WHERE THINGS STAND
Well, the Subsidiary Legislation Committee of Parliament is due to invite Mr. Baba for a meeting on his petition at a later date but the clock is ticking as we count down the 21 day notice before the new sports legislative instrument LI 1988 becomes Law.
Surely, Mr. Baba cannot be saying he doesn't want this legislation that will bring Ghana in full compliance with the IOC charter and help lift the cloud of the Olympic suspension. Or could it be that his real want is for Ghana to remain suspended?
Some have suggested that if he can ensure we stay suspended for a few more months until 2012, then he is the one who could lead Ghana to London once the suspension is lifted, because there may not be enough time to hold a GOC election before the Games.
I hope this is not true and that Mr. Baba is not thinking about self over nation; but then, for 14 years he did absolutely nothing to get Ghana to move in the direction of democratic associations, not even when the chance presented itself in 2008 as we all witnessed when athletics stakeholders wanted to take their sport to a congress.
Now, since 2009, guess who has repositioned himself as the staunchest advocate of democratic associations? Wonders will never cease! Mr. Baba, come again!
No law is meant to be set in stone; not even IOC’s constitution.
Therefore from a logical perspective, questioning the standard democratic process for repealing and replacing outdated legislative instruments is a questionable move.
To call the effort to bring Ghana into full compliance with the IOC Charter “window dressing,” indicates an aversion to the LI itself and by extension the IOC Charter. The litmus test should be the nature of the content of LI 1988.
This is where B. T. Baba should focus his energy. But if he has already reviewed the content and the only fault he could find is the process, then I humbly ask Mr. Baba to move his stopped car off the road. It is time for Ghana sports to move forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment