BLACKWELL Siwale says he is no longer a member of FAZ and therefore is not bound by their rules or statutes.
Siwale has written to the Football Association of Zambia ethics committee in response to his ban for unethical behaviour.
“Your letter to me of the 11th instant on the above subject matter in hand and herby refers. I acknowledge receipt thereof with many thanks and have noted the contents therein. I therefore react to the purported ban as follows ; that as stated in paragraph 3.0 (i) of your letter aforesaid I am a purported expelled member. According to Blacks’ law dictionary, 5th edition, expel means eject, to put to drive out and generally with implication of force. It follows therefore that having been expelled I am no longer a member of your association and therefore not bound by your rules or statutes. This position is supported by the provision of clause 2 of the FIFA Code of Ethics which is your point of reference,” read the letter dated April 17, 2018.
“The same provides thus; this code shall apply to all officials and players as well we match and player agents who are bound by the code on the day the infringement is committed. It is trite from a cursory study of the above clause that I am sure not in any of the category envisaged by the clause to be subjected to any purported actions herein.”
“That the Ethics Committee can only exercise it jurisdiction in section 27 (2) of the FIFA Code of Ethics subject to Section 2 aforesaid. It is further trite law that jurisdiction is the very basis upon which a tribunal or committee can adjudicate a matter. Any trial or adjudication devoid of jurisdiction is a nullity.”
Siwale said he was not a member hereinbefore stated, having been expelled by the council and therefore not covered under section 2 herein.
He stated that there was clearly no jurisdiction on FAZ’s part to make the purported to exercise jurisdiction over a person who is not subject to their control.
“Regrettably, you have clearly not appreciated the import of section 27 (2) as read with section 2 of the FIFA Code of Ethics herein. Your purported actions are a complete display of abuse of authority and a contradiction of my constitutional right to association,” he stated.
“That you have made serious allegations against me with regard to purported circulation of alleged illegally obtained materials from your secretariat. Having made these allegations and your association being a creature of rules and regulations, you should have then charged me with the same, asking for clarification and to exculpate myself against the same. An adjudication process entails that I am given an opportunity to answer to the allegations against me after when then a fairly constituted tribunal will sit to make a determination. The committee purportedly adjudged my alleged case but this adjudgement did not comply with the basic process required to be undertaken by your body.”
Siwale stated that the above action by FAZ is regrettable and clearly outside any civilised mode of determining any cause against anyone.
He stated that the letter was again regrettably devoid of any legal basis and therefore a nullity and a response was only out of courtesy.
Siwale stated that he rejects the contents of the letter and demanded a retraction of the same lest he exercise his rights in a court of law against FAZ.
He stated that it was common that FAZ as recipients of a consent arbitral award demanding compliance with the rules of natural justice and even in the face of such documents, FAZ continues to fragrantly disobey the rules and natural justice.
“Your purported instruction to the General Secretary to send a circular to all clubs is a nullity and no reasonable club with comply with such an illegality,” stated Siwale.