BY KUNLE SOLAJA.
There has been an implosion in the Confederation of African Football (CAF) as a standing committee chairman resigns after open disagreement with the confederation president, Ahmad.
Musa Hassan Bility, the Liberian chairman of Committee on CHAN and also a member of the Emergency Committee has tendered a letter of resignation from both bodies.
His resignation has revealed the fragile bong among the members who were initially united in upstaging the ‘ancient regime’ two years ago.
Halfway into the first tenure of the new helmsmen, open disagreement has come up.
Bility alleged in his resignation letter dated February 1, 2019 that each time he disagreed with the CAF president or any of his “close associates”, on any issue, the president would take that against him and would thereafter decide whether he would function or not.
He pointed at the Ahmad scheduling a meeting of the CHAN Committee without his knowledge, even though he, Bility was the chairman.
Bility remarked that as the chairman of the committee, he was supposed to be at the head and also duly informed of the agenda and the purpose of the meeting.
That appears to be the immediate cause of Bility’s resignation. He however also frowned at
He informed that Ahmad had dictatorial tendencies. According to Bility who at one time wanted to contest for the FIFA presidency, Ahmad at their last meeting proclaimed: “I am the President of CAF, I am the President of every committee”.
This according to Bility is not correct.
He declared: “Mr. President you are the President of CAF but not the President of all Committees. These are Statutory Committees and must function independently and report to the Executive committee in accordance with their statutory mandates.
“Assuming their responsibilities, as you are doing now, makes it impossible for you to play your role as the Head of CAF. Obviously, performing these tasks deprives you of the roles you ought to play such as to supervise or counter check or review the performances of others.
“This is precisely why the framers of our Statues enshrined the appropriate administrative layers in it for the smooth and transparent function of our noble Institution.”
Bility also complained of the lopsidedness of composition of committees in CAF. “The current composition of the CAF Standing Committees clearly begs question of good governance and transparency.
“We have 54 members and there’s absolutely no reason why any standing committee (especially the keys ones) should have more than one person from a member Association/Country.
“I have discussed this with the President and he has responded in the usual manner: “I’m the President and I do as I want”.
Probably the most damaging of the allegations made by Bility is that of financial misconduct.
In his letter of resignation, he wrote: “Lastly, and very sadly, the President’s approach to issues concerning his colleagues is rather sad and divisive. A case in point has to do with a $200,000 that was wired by CAF to an unknown account in Europe.
“This money was designated for the Liberian FA while I was serving as it’s President. But interestingly CAF sent it to the account of a firm in Poland that deals in artifacts. CAF claims it received the instruction from the Liberia FA to send the funds to this firm. Of course, this is false and misleading.
“This begs two very important questions: can CAF send funds intended for MA to a third-party beneficiary? In the wake of tight International restrictions on financial transactions aimed at combatting terrorism and money laundering, were requirements such as Invoice and contract that would clearly state the purpose for which the funds were sent presented to the CAF before it authorized these transactions? “And if any, where these instruments in conformity with CAF Financial regulations? Why would CAF authorize a payment intended for football development in a member Association’s Country to a firm that deals in artifacts two years in a row without any red flag? Why CAF didn’t request for the first utilization report before sending the second payment to the same dubious recipients?