In this multi-part series, #JoySports Gary Al-Smith breaks down the voluminous 2014 World Cup Commission report into chewable bites.

CLICK HERE FOR "Part 1: 30 most frequently asked questions"

This second part explores how the obvious friction between the Ghana FA and the Commission affected the findings.

-

Why does the GFA feel victimized by the Dzamefe Commission report and the government White Paper?

Before the answer, let's backtrack a bit.

The terms of reference of the commission are mainly to:

1. To inquire into matters relating to:

a) The preparation of the Ghana Black Stars Team for the tournament and possible lapses which might have caused the early exit of the team from the tournament;

b) The management of the Ghana Black Stars Team and events in their camp during the tournament, and

c) Ghana’s treatment of Ghanaian football fans who were sent to support the Black Stars by the Ministry of Youth and Sports;

2. To advise the Government on the financing of the activities of the senior national team and other national teams;

3. To inquire into all other matters of public interest concerning the organization of Ghana’s Black Stars participation in the Tournament; and

4. To make recommendations to the Government for ensuring that, as far as practicable, all the findings are implemented.

With these in mind, there is a widely held belief in pro-GFA circles that both the White Paper and the subsequent report targets them on too many occasions.

What are some of the FA's arguments?

Section 3.8 of the Dzamefe Commission (whose three members pose with the President, above) report recommends that GFA boss Kwesi Nyantakyi be investigated for allegedly misapplying $200,000. This was allegedly paid to him to organize a friendly before Ghana went to the World Cup.

The GFA admits that Kwesi Nyantakyi did take the money, but they don't get why their boss is not being named in his capacity as GFA President, but as an individual working on his own.

Anything else?

Yes. For the GFA, although the Commission does say Nyantakyi took the money, it does acknowledge that receipts for said cash were provided, so they don't get why he is still being attacked.

This position is not entirely true as, because he was leader of the FA delegation, the buck would have had to stop with him.

And if you listened to the GFA’s rhetoric in the days following the White Paper’s release, they just stopped short of saying the Commission had been lazy as they (the commission) cast doubt on the veracity of the FA's receipts (because they feel one of the stamps on the receipts could be fake) rather than going the extra mile to check if they are legitimate.

And even worse, the GFA have been surprised that this recommendation was also accepted by the government's White Paper.

How does the GFA define the infamous ‘coefficient’ money?

The background of the use of the term ‘coefficient money’ is as follows: while testifying, former Minister for Youth and Sports Elvis Afriyie Ankrah told the commission that the monies given to the team’s management as a lump sum were given to be distributed to all who played an administrative role.

When, later, the GFA President testified, his account tied in with that of Afriyie-Ankrah. Nyantakyi went further to note that this practice was not new, and that similar processes had been done for the 2006 and 2010 World Cups. In fact, he said it was standard for all tournaments and matches where management were due fees.

For the GFA, this definition of ‘management fees’ given should not have been shot down by the commission, especially as none of the 87 witnesses summoned ever disputed it.

Nyantakyi singled out again?

When Kofi Manu, an FA member, appeared in the Joy FM studios last week, he expressed shock that his boss had been singled out to refund the ‘coefficient money’.

This money ($412,500) was said by Nyantakyi to be monies paid to seven (unspecified) sports ministry officials as appearance fees. The commission has always disputed this fact on the grounds that the FA or Nyantakyi have been unable to provide documentation to that effect.

But for the GFA, the fact that no contrary evidence was given and that only Emergency Committee members of the FA took the money [and in fact decided who should get how much] should be enough.

Selective amnesia?

Even before the Justice Dzamefe hearings began, the FA felt the government would use the three-man team to absolve themselves and party officials from blame.

The GFA have, not overtly, argued that the key issue that caused player unrest in camp was the delay in arrival of bonuses – something caused by the sports ministry and not themselves. 

To this end, the FA have always scoffed at the White Paper’s recommendations which suggest ‘only’ surcharges for top government officials like Elvis Afriyie Ankrah and Larry Acheampong.

The FA was particularly peeved when the White Paper and report seemed to focus on Prosper Apasu, the Chief Accountant at the Ministry of Youth and Sports and the Chief Director of the Ministry, Alhaji Yakubu while seeming to let Afriyie-Ankrah off the hook.

How valid are the GFA's fears?

The fact is that, by their very nature, Commissions of Inquiry can be potent political tools with which a sitting government can use to execute agenda. This is because Article 279 (1) of Ghana's constitution says "a commission of inquiry shall have the powers, rights and privileges of the High Court or a Justice of the High Court at a trial, in respect of -

(a) enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise;

(b) compelling the production of documents; and

(c) the issue of a commission or request to examine witnesses abroad.

In short, a government bent bullying potential witnesses can use these provisions to do so. 

Has the commission's conduct before, during and after the hearings suggested an agenda against the FA?

It is difficult to allege such bias, but a careful reading of the 396-paged Dzamefe Commission report does give an indication that the FA was probably targeted a bit too strongly.

The key thing here is the tone taken when the commission was discussing the GFA in the report. Sometimes, it sounded downright hostile. But this apparent hostility had cause, to be fair.

Anybody who closely monitored the sittings noted how FA officials - and their silky lawyer - constantly got on the nerves on the commissioners either by blatantly evading questions, invoking Fifa statutes to block demands from the commissioners, and other such gimmicks. And, even as an observer, it could get annoying.

Examples of such 'hostility'?

Reports of commissions of inquiry should, as much as possible, make its points devoid of emotive sentiment. It did not seem that way throughout this report.

The commissioners freely made assumptions that the GFA and the sports ministry were colluding; that the GFA tended letters in evidence 'obviously drafted by their solicitor'; that GFA members who said they felt "uncomfortable" disclosing how much they got in bonuses shows "they have something to hide" and so on (pp 108 & 109).

Another instance was when the commission was giving its conclusions about the conduct of the FA and sports ministry in the matter of refunding an $8m World Cup loan from the government. The commission concludes, rather brusquely, that "a certain level of collusion between top state officials and civil servants on one hand and management of the GFA on the other" existed with the aim to frustrate its work. 

And then the report concludes damningly that "in the end it is obvious that both [Ministry of Youth and Sports] and GFA had been brought together by a common desire to employ the prize money for purposes known to themselves".

Let's keep in mind that the commission was always quick to remind the public that they were not a prosecutorial body, but just an adversorial and inquisitorial one.

To that end, some of the language used in their recommendations and conclusions were not conciliatory all. It is no surprise that the FA have, throughout the entire process, been wary and defensive every step of the way.  

Does the GFA see any personal vendetta somewhere in the commission's makeup?

Yes. It has been widely thought in GFA circles that the inclusion of Moses Foh-Amoaning, in particular, on the three-member commission was done solely to attack them.

The veteran broadcaster (above, pictured), with more than four decades of experience in journalism and law, is known to have strong moral and legal principles that have been irroncilable with the way many sporting bodies in Ghana work.

The feeling of conspiracy came right from the start. Many FA people feel that the government, in fulfilling Article 278 of the constitution which says (in clause 3d) that... 

"a person shall not be appointed a sole commissioner or the chairman of a commission of inquiry under this article unless he is a person who possesses special qualifications or knowledge in respect of the matter being investigated," 

...chose Justice Dzamefe for his hardline stance on issues.

Also, clause 4 says "...where a commission of inquiry appointed under clause (1) of this article consists of more than two commissioners, other than the chairman, at least one of them shall be a person who possesses special qualifications or knowledge in respect of the matter being investigated."

That person, many pro-FA people feel, was Foh-Amoaning. And these people are adamant that his role was to perform a hatchet job on the football governing body.

One didn't need to be a rocket scientist to note how explosive the verbal sparring between Foh-Amoaning and Nyantakyi got anytime they came face to face. The mutual mistrust was clear.

But is it true that there's a belief in the GFA that this government does not like them?

Yes. The belief is that sections of the ruling government do not like the Nyantakyi-led administration. This school of thought is predicated on the alleged [from the FA point of view] covert and overt attempts to dislodge the GFA boss, the most famous of which was the raid of their offices by the EOCO in 2010. 

So, how have the GFA insulated themselves against such fears during the hearings?

Under Kwesi Nyantakyi, the current GFA have been known to be extremely competent in playing by the book, and it was clear - to a large extent - during the commission's hearings. The GFA combined the vaunted legal experience of its lawyer Thadeus Sory (below, pictured) with a dogged approach to answering any questions on a need-to-know basis.

It also helped that the FA's representatives are hardened football people who clearly understood their rights with respect to what kinds of information they could be compelled to give.

In the aftermath of the government's release of the Dzamefe report and White Paper, the FA's officials have maintained a stony silence on its findings. But what they have also done a lot of advocates who argue the above-mentioned points in the media, especially among the sports-biased media houses.

One such FA official, Kofi Manu, was in the Joy FM studios last Monday to present a compelling argument as to why the government of Ghana has no right to interfere in the body's operations. [Click here to read a summary of Manu's presentation]

Can the government still penetrate the FA using the findings of the report and White Paper?

In a country like Ghana, football is an extremely emotive issue and both the GFA and the government know that. To this end, both bodies take great pains to influence public opinion, which is about the easiest way to perpertuate their agenda.

As it stands, public opinion on the report and White Paper is split. Although a section of the public believe the GFA's rhetoric that it's being victimised, many of those same people would love to see a massive house-cleaning in the FA.

In the same vein, the government is not fooling anyone with the way it presented the White Paper, which is widely seen as being protective of certain big names in government who were involved in the World Cup fiasco.

In short, so long as football remains such a major pillar of the country's passion, this smart GFA may be able to use the media and its influence to bulldoze their way out of some of the recommendations against them by the Dzamefe report 

-

CLICK HERE FOR "Part 1: 30 most frequently asked questions"

Want more? Click here for part 3.

-

Gary Al-Smith is assisting editor at #JoySports.