The Member of Parliament for Sissala East, Mohammed Issah Bataglia, has mounted a strong challenge against the verdict delivered by the Upper West Regional Football Association (RFA) Disciplinary Committee in the protest filed by Kalibi SC against Kulfuo Dreams FC.

The MP described the committee's decision as one that raises "grave legal, procedural, evidential, and regulatory concerns", insisting the matter goes beyond a football match and touches on the integrity of football justice itself.

According to Mr. Bataglia, disciplinary decisions in football must be guided by rules, evidence, due process and fairness rather than "assumption, administrative confusion, and selective interpretation".

One of the major concerns raised by the MP is what he describes as the committee's reliance on the wrong regulatory provision.

He argues that the Committee based its decision on Article 16(1)(g). This provision concerns referees and assistant referees appearing in strips distinct from the participating teams, rather than provisions governing club strip registration, he argued.

"The committee placed reliance on a provision that does not deal with club strip registration. That alone is a fundamental misdirection in law," he stated.

Mr. Bataglia further contends that the relevant provisions governing club strips—Articles 16(1)(a), 16(1)(d), and 16(1)(f)—were not properly applied before the committee arrived at its decision to award forfeiture against Kulfuo Dreams.

He questioned how the committee concluded that Kulfuo Dreams used an unregistered strip without producing what he described as the most important piece of evidence: the official strip register maintained by the football authorities.

"If the allegation was that Kulfuo Dreams played in an unregistered strip, then the official strip register was the best evidence. The regulations require the football authority to keep and publish that register. Yet the register was never produced," the MP argued.

The Sissala East legislator also accused the committee of improperly shifting the burden of proof from Kalibi SC, the protesting club, onto Kulfuo Dreams.

According to him, it was Kalibi SC's responsibility to prove with clear and convincing evidence that Kulfuo Dreams fielded an unregistered strip.

"In disciplinary matters leading to forfeiture, suspicion is not proof, absence of documents is not proof, and administrative confusion is not proof," he stressed.

Mr. Bataglia further argued that the committee failed to distinguish between a club changing its strip and a club using an unregistered strip.

He maintained that Kulfuo Dreams acted pursuant to an official circular issued by the Division Two League Board Chairman, inviting clubs intending to change their strips to do so.

The MP noted that, although the Committee acknowledged the circular's existence, it declared it "void ab initio."

e questioned the legal basis for that conclusion.

"Where is the regulation that rendered the circular void? Where is the evidence that clubs were warned not to rely on it or that it was withdrawn before Kulfuo Dreams acted upon it?" he asked.

Mr. Bataglia also invoked the legal principle established in Royal British Bank v. Turquand, commonly known as the Indoor Management Rule, arguing that Kulfuo Dreams was entitled to rely on an official communication issued by a recognised football authority.

He cited the Ghanaian case of Barclays Bank v Perseverance Transport Services Ltd, asserting that where an institution presents an official as having authority, innocent parties acting in good faith should not suffer because of undisclosed internal irregularities.

"If there was an internal defect in the issuance of the circular, that defect belonged to the football authority and not to Kulfuo Dreams," he argued.

The MP further questioned whether the principles of natural justice were fully observed by the Disciplinary Committee.

Referring to the case of Accra Hearts of Oak Sporting Club v Ghana Football Association, he noted that football governing bodies are required to act fairly where their decisions affect the rights and interests of clubs.

According to him, the committee ought to have thoroughly examined the official strip register, the authority of the League Board Chairman, the status of the circular, whether it had been withdrawn, whether clubs had been warned against relying on it, and whether Kulfuo Dreams acted in bad faith before imposing such a severe sanction.

Mr. Bataglia described forfeiture as one of the most serious sanctions available in football administration and argued that such punishment should only be imposed where the evidence is strong and the regulations are correctly applied.

"Kulfuo Dreams won the match on the field by four goals to two. To overturn that result, the evidence must be strong, and the law must be exact," he stated.

He warned that allowing the verdict to stand could create what he called a dangerous precedent for football administration in the region.

According to him, clubs would be unable to trust official circulars or rely on communications from league authorities if they could later be punished for acting on those directives.

"The real issue is not whether one supports Kulfuo Dreams or Kalibi SC. The issue is whether disciplinary decisions must be based on the correct regulation, proper evidence, burden of proof, fair hearing, legitimate expectation, apparent authority, proportionality, and the rule of law," he said.

Mr. Bataglia concluded that the Committee had failed to establish, with the required legal and evidential certainty, that the match result should be overturned.

"Football justice must be principled. Football justice must be evidence-based. Football justice must follow the regulations. The law must remain superior to assumptions, the regulations must remain superior to discretion, and justice must remain superior to administrative convenience," he stated.