IOC Peddles Favoritism Disguised as Democracy: Ghana Refuses to Buy

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.

WHY I WROTE TO FIFA-EBOW QUANSAH

Former President of the Sports Writers Association of Ghana Ebow Quansah spoke to Citi Sports on his recent letter written to football’s governing body Fifa on alleged governmental interference in football administration in the country.

The news has generated much public debate with many questioning the authenticity of the claims while some also support the claims by the veteran journalist.

On Citi Fm’s flagship sports programme Half Time on 20th October 2010 hosted by Erasmus Kwaw, Ebow Quansah was given the chance to clarify issues that have arisen since the publication of his letter.

The following is an extract of the interview.

“Listen, no one, nobody has ever denied a word of what I wrote in that letter. All the FA is saying is, we don’t know how this thing was written, we have no hand in it, and we do not want to have a hand in it that is all what they are saying. As I sit here, nobody has denied a word of what I wrote”

Erasmus Kwaw
What made you write the letter to Fifa?

Ebow
Ghana Football is moving forward and looking at the way it’s going, if we don’t take care and we allow government to step in, we may run into danger of getting into what Nigeria got( Nigeria was suspended recently by Fifa due to government interference) government putting people before the court and that kind of thing.
We have not reached there yet but I think there are scenarios indicating that if we don’t take care, we might get there. So I sought of raised the Red flag to warn that if we don’t take care, we might get into danger.

Erasmus
You stated in your letter that agents of the governing party started a campaign of hate to undermine the authority of the football administration in 2009. We had members of the CPP, NPP on the transitional committee?

Ebow
I’m talking of the NDC transitional team composed of NDC members. I do not mean the entire transitional team that worked out how the new government will come in.

Erasmus
And you saw that to be a hate campaign?

Ebow
Of course yes. Straight away!

Erasmus
Was this thing being perpetuated by the government or a member of the government?

Ebow
I said agents of the government. Agents of the party, I did not even mention the government but agents of the party.

Erasmus
Did they have the backing of the President?

Ebow
They did not necessarily need the backing of the President. I cannot tell whether they had the backing of the President but some agents of the NDC did that. I have no reason to believe that the President directed them to do so but I say agents of the ruling party did that.

Erasmus
You said there was a circular which was sent to leading members of the government.

Ebow
Yes there was this circular and after the Public Interest Committee thing stalled in fact until now the PIC has not been formed. As we speak right now, there is an order from the Ministry of Youth and Sports to the Ghana Football Association that the PIC should be formed with three members nominated by the government and Abedi Pele as the chairman.
Erasmus

Are you aware that there have been deliberations between the government and the GFA over the period?

Ebow
I know that some people claiming to be representing the government have been meeting some members of the Executive Committee of the FA.

Erasmus
And the FA chose to meet them?

Ebow
Well, that is you know I mean obviously they are people in football already but tracing their power to the new administration.

Erasmus
Then it means the FA recognises their power?

Ebow
Well that is their own business, whether they recognised their power or not, it’s their own business. I didn’t write because I’m a member of the FA or I’m writing on behalf of the FA. But as a Sport journalist with several years of experience, I wrote on my own behalf. People have said all kind of things as if we don’t have brains of our own.

Erasmus
You say a hate campaign is being waged against the FA but then you just explained that you are aware there have been several meetings between government and the FA. Did the FA voluntarily choose to meet those people? Were they forced to meet them?

Ebow
I say I cannot tell. But what I know is that there were several meetings. I cannot tell whether some were coerced or people were marched to the meeting grounds.

Erasmus
What is your understanding of what transpired between President Mills and Fifa President Sepp Blatter? Why are you so intent on knowing the exact details?

Ebow
Because immediately after the Presidential delegation to Switzerland, the FA was hauled before the Serious Fraud Office to account for some monies, some entirely private. The monies they are talking about never came from the state. So the government of Ghana, as I indicated has absolutely no power to demand that kind of accountability. What the government of Ghana has power over is monies paid for in respect of national teams.

Erasmus
Let’s try to define exactly who constitutes the state. Do you see the SFO as acting directly under the orders of the government?

Ebow
SFO is a State agency. It was set up by an act of Parliament. The SFO has absolutely no power to investigate the FA over monies that have been generated by the FA. That is why Fifa has instructed its entire agencies that: please don’t allow government interference in your affairs. SFO is a state organsation funded by the state and its run as a state agency.

Erasmus
Can the FA invite state agencies to step into its affairs?

Ebow
In what way, I don’t understand what you mean. Can you break it down?

Erasmus
I’m talking in respect to this issue about the Auditor General. The FA allows itself to be audited.

Ebow
In respect of monies that have been paid it by the state.

Erasmus
No not only that. I have here the management letter that was written by the Auditor to the FA in April 2010. The FA allowed itself to be audited, how do you classy that?

Ebow
Well, you said that FA allowed itself to be audited. So that is the business of the FA. What I know is what I wrote that..

Erasmus
Under the Company’s Code, any company that registers in Ghana needs to be audited at certain stages. Are you aware?

Ebow
You said the FA allowed itself to be audited. Look I’m talking of Football regulations, please don’t send me into some polemics. I’m talking of football regulations as I know.

Erasmus
You are saying that State agencies cannot investigate the FA. True or false.

Ebow
Well, as I’m saying I don’t know about that, if they audit the FA that is a different matter but I’m talking of International football regulations.

Erasmus
When they (Auditor General) audited the FA, they did not do classifications such as state issues or private issues. They just audited everything that had to do with monies that were given to them by government, by Glo or by every other agency.

Ebow
And so! So because the Auditor General has audited the FA, it means that every other state agency has the right to investigate the FA? Is that what you are saying?

Erasmus
You made a categorical statement that state agencies have no right to investigate the FA.

Ebow
As far as I know, in international football regulations that state of Ghana is supposed to keep off the affairs of the FA. If the FA allowed the auditor general to investigate it, then it’s their own matter.

Erasmus
Under the company’s code, every company in the country is supposed to submit accounts to the Auditor General and the FA as an entity is a company. Today they are saying that they are a private entity and for that matter the SFO can’t investigate them.

Ebow
Listen I’m talking about the Football aspect of the FA.
If they FA invites the Auditor General to look at its accounts….as I’m sitting here if I form my company and I feel that the Auditor General’s account would be beneficial to me, I can inform the Auditor General to come and audit my accounts. I think we are confusing the two issues because Fifa is very clear on what constitutes state or governmental interference.

Erasmus
Tell me about it.

Ebow
The reason why Fifa issues such instructions is that otherwise governments will use football as the public relations wing of political parties. Football is so emotional; football brings so much satisfaction, look at what happened to Ghana during the recent world cup. Otherwise various governments will use football as their tool to win various people to its side. Fifa says please keep off so that football can stand on its own and not become a tool for government.

Erasmus
What is your understanding of the Mid Sea saga?

Ebow
I don’t think I came here to discuss the mid sea issue. That is a different ball game. The Mid Sea money is a sponsorship deal the FA brokered; it’s not state money given to the FA. That is what I want the whole of Ghana to understand. Sponsorship raised by the FA is entirely different from monies that the State of Ghana pays in respect of national teams. If the government of the day wants to find out how its monies have been used in respect of the national teams, well I have no problem with that.

Erasmus
But when it comes to private issues, don’t touch them?

Ebow
Please, don’t.

Erasmus
Which rule says that?

Ebow
Fifa International regulations.

Erasmus
Please if you have the Fifa rules here, can you just give us the portion that says that because it’s very crucial to this letter?

Ebow
I don’t have it here and I can’t quote it off hand but that is what the International regulations say about football administration in the whole wide world not only Ghana. Look why were Nigeria banned? Because government sent people to court.

Erasmus
They (the Nigeria Football Officials) have been meeting the Economic and Crimes Commission for a long time. The final thing that made Fifa step in was when they coerced Adamu, the General Secretary to step down from his position. They (government) interfered because they were physically taking somebody out of his position. That is the difference.

Ebow
Here there were appeals to get Randy Abbey off his position. Yes, I can tell you that even a letter was prepared but Randy Abbey did not sign.

Erasmus
A letter was prepared by whom?

Ebow
I cannot tell you who signed the letter but a letter was prepared to be signed by Randy Abbey resigning his position as spokesman of the FA and chairman of the Management Committee of the Black Meteors.

Erasmus
You say somebody demanded that. Who demanded that?

Ebow
Agents claiming to represent the government, people who claim to represent the government.

Erasmus
But the FA has dissociated itself from your letter.

Ebow
There is a difference between dissociation from my letter, I did not consult the FA before writing my letter, and the FA had no input in my letter. Listen, no one, nobody has ever denied a word of what I wrote in that letter. All the FA is saying is, we don’t know how this thing was written, we have no hand in it, and we do not want to have a hand in it that is all what they are saying. As I sit here, nobody has denied a word of what I wrote. Simple English says that dissociating yourself from somebody’s action means that I’m not part of that action. But as to whether was written was true or false, as we sit here nobody has told me it’s not true.

Erasmus
And indeed Mr. Nyantakyi has not come public to tell us what is going on? If it affects him so much, why has he not come out publicly on the issue?

Ebow
My friend, I’m not in the mind of Nyantakyi. I do not know how he sees things. I wrote as Ebow Quansah, seeing that things are going wrong if we don’t take care we will reach a point of no return. This is some form of red flag I raised. The background I have built is just for the Fifa President to tell us what he told our President. That I will be surprised if indeed he told our President to come and investigate the FA. Unfortunately, when I said I was surprised some papers have written around the world, and my information is that it came from GNA. That is not what I said. I said I will be surprised if indeed Fifa asked the President of Ghana to investigate the FA.

Erasmus
You said a letter was prepared for Randy Abbey to sign but he did not sign, again the agents demanded they be given slots on the management committees of the national teams? So again did this demand come officially to the FA?

Ebow
No this is part of the discussions they had with the FA executives. As I sit here, they have indicated that Public Interest Committee should be formed with three members nominated by the government and that PIC must be chaired by Abedi Pele and this for me is complete government interference.

Erasmus
You said the Special Aide to the President Nii Lantey Vanderpuye was not supposed to be at the Ghana Olympic Committee congress?

Ebow
Yes, he was not supposed to be part of the electoral process.

Erasmus
I can also confirm to you that Nii Lantey Vanderpuye was the chairman of the Ghana Weightlifting Association.

Ebow
But at the time he became chairman of the Weightlifting Association, the GOC had already called a congress so he was not qualified to go and contest. That is what I’m saying.

Erasmus
Who appoints those members of the sporting associations? It’s very clear: the government. A new government always has power to appoint new people. Am I with right or not?

Ebow
You are wrong. The various Associations were asked to organise elections after the GOC impasse.

Erasmus
Please let’s go back to the main point. Does the government have the power to appoint people to the sporting associations?

Ebow
What I’m saying is at a point in time government used to appoint the chairman and other members of the Ghana Football Association. But we have moved very far from that.

Erasmus
With the other Associations, does the government still have that power over them?

Ebow
Yes, some of the other Associations managed by the National Sports Council.

Erasmus
Apart from Football, which other Association is very independent?

Ebow
No Association is independent at the moment.

Erasmus
So it’s true that government has the power to appoint those people. So Nii Lantey Vanderpuye was appointed by the government.

Ebow
Listen to me, I’m not saying that the Nii Lantey Vanderpuye’s shouldn’t have been chairmen of the Associations. What I’m saying is that at the time the elections were called, all these people did not qualify for the elections because the statutory notice had already been given.

Erasmus
What the GOC constitution says is they invite member associations. In this instance they invited member associations, they did not invite specifically the chairman, secretary or whoever. So if government made appointments after or within 21 day notice who was to represent them at congress? Was it the new ones or the old ones?

Ebow
Look, we dealing with statutory obligations. Every election has its rules.

Erasmus
Until you are able to prove that the GOC specifically said we invite chairmen.

Ebow
Please you are taking me to polemics that does not apply here.

Erasmus
They are not polemics if you are talking about 21 day notice they invite associations so if there are changes assuming the chairman dies, the secretary dies, we have treasurer and the other members. So the associations delegate their powers to those members who go for the congress.

Ebow
Listen we have crossed that line long ago because the IOC says no, the elections you conducted is not proper. So the GOC as we knew it should remain in power and organise elections. We cannot go away from International regulations because a new group of people are in power.

Erasmus
We keep on talking about Fifa, IOC these people are not angels?

Ebow
Please even that, don’t come there. Who is an angel? There are regulations that must be obeyed. What is in the statutes is that, there must be a 21 day notice.

Erasmus
There was a 21 day notice, government had the right to change people at the associations.

Ebow
The rule has been specified and if you don’t qualify, you wait. Because I remember when the NPP came to power and at a point in time they were going to the polls and that issue came up. They said well, if that is their rule then they should go out and hold their elections. Nobody bothered about their congress because a new government had come to power.