Mukoka’s football credentials take him as back as his days as a candid columnist at the demised Post Newspapers. He reckons officials at Football House are acting out of fear of the unknown.
The journalist writes that for an impeachment to succeed, it should be supported by existing statutes.
BELOW IS HIS FULL POST:
OF IMPEACHMENT AND FAZ
By Augustine Mukoka
There are those in our football circles entertaining an imaginary thought their tenure of office is being threatened.
Not sure how. But word on the street suggests an impeachment aimed at the FAZ leadership, particularly president Andrew Kamanga, is currently underway.
Grounds for the so-called impeachment are best known by the purveyors of this notion.
The local football rumor mill has not helped matters with a draft letter purportedly authored by City of Lusaka co-owner Diego Casilli prematurely circulated.
It was as if the purveyors of the alleged impeachment motion had received ‘prophetic’ confirmation of their fears.
And they have put together names of an imaginary group of people they believe is pushing the agenda.
According to the letter, City were in the process of challenging FAZ on various issues including the recently announced amnesty on the registration of players.
The amnesty, which has seemingly added to the confusion than resolving the problem, was aimed at putting an end to disputes of unregistered players that have featured in the league.
Delayed boardroom decisions were beginning to cause rancor among FAZ affiliates, so its executive moved to avert the situation by declaring amnesty.
Alas, the implementation has been chaotic leading to insinuations FAZ was not applying the fair play rule as expected.
City are among the first to raise issue with the amnesty. But while the matter was being passed from one end to another within the club, the details meant to be tabled before FAZ were public domain.
Shortly after the letter was leaked, secretary Chris Chilongo moved in to disown the correspondence which according to others at the club was an internal item not yet for public consumption.
So, how then did this turn into an impeachment drive? When I read the City letter and made inquiries about the so-called impeachment, I first laughed it off.
On second thought, I asked myself; what are the grounds for this same impeachment if true? How are these grounds, if any, supported by the amended FAZ constitution?
In a curious pursuit, I have come to discover that the amended FAZ constitution does not even provide for the removal of the president through an impeachment.
It’s a glaring omission. Not even internal regulations are available to provide for such a move.
It is an anomaly FAZ affiliates should consider correcting.
Otherwise, it gives a sitting president leverage to do anything without the thought of facing up to scrutiny by the FAZ council.
Hopefully, such a suggestion will not be misconstrued for a campaign to oust anyone.
So there is no need to be unsettled by an impeachment that does not exist or is not provided for by FAZ statutes?
For an impeachment of the incumbent to succeed, there must be guidelines particularly for the FAZ Council as to how this can be done.
This was clear with the FAZ constitution of 2006, not the amended document.
Although article 37 of the amended FAZ constitution provides for the “dismissal of a person of a body”, it’s a little too weak to enforce under any circumstance.
Granted, as head of the executive committee, which is one of the bodies of FAZ as defined by the constitution, the president qualifies to be referred to as “a person of a body” of the association.
The provision is not explicit but infers some form of authority in 37 (1) on the “Council to dismiss a person of a body”. This provision also gives power to the executive committee to dismiss a person of a body, but such action remains wide open to challenge if invoked to apply on a sitting president.
Therefore, for an impeachment to assume some semblance of success, the current FAZ legislation must provide a clear path.
And one of the ways this can be done is by affiliates submitting an item to amend the constitution at the Council so that the legislation provides clear steps members can adhere to if they found their leader wanting.
At the very least, internal regulations approved by the Council must define such a process.
In the meantime, no such attempt can succeed. If as claimed such maneuvers are
attempted under the current limited provisions, they’ll be met with strong resistance from FIFA.
Rather than preoccupy ourselves with a non-existent ‘opposition’, those at Football House are better placed to focus on sealing the administrative loopholes blighting the operations of the secretariat.
Member clubs such as City of Lusaka are entitled to seek answers on issues affecting football management. And an attempt to do so does not constitute a bid to impeachment anyone.
The idea that there are some people plotting to impeach the FAZ president sounds like a figment of someone’s imagination.