By Harriet Tornguvan
A Nigerian legal scholar and sports administrator, Dr. Okou Femedein Timipre, has raised critical concerns over the Confederation of African Football’s (CAF) controversial decision to withdraw the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) from Senegal and award it to Morocco, describing the move as legally contentious and open to challenge.
Dr. Okou, an associate professor with a multidisciplinary background in human kinetics, sports science, and law, argued that CAF’s ruling exposes a fundamental conflict between established football laws and its own disciplinary regulations.
In a detailed legal analysis, the academic who holds a PhD in Human Kinetics/Sports Science from the University of Calabar, an LLB, and an LLM from the University of Jos contended that CAF may have overstepped its authority by overturning a match outcome that had already been completed under the supervision of a referee.
At the heart of the dispute, according to him, is the tension between Law 5 of the FIFA Laws of the Game, which upholds the finality of a referee’s decisions, and CAF’s disciplinary provisions, particularly Articles 82 and 84, which address match abandonment and forfeiture.
He explained that under Law 5, referees possess absolute authority over match proceedings, including enforcing the laws, managing disciplinary actions, and determining the validity of match results. Crucially, decisions on “facts of the game” are considered final and binding, a principle widely upheld in global football jurisprudence.
Applying this principle to the Senegal case, Dr. Okou noted that although some Senegalese players temporarily walked off the pitch, they later returned, and the referee allowed the match to continue to completion. This, he argued, effectively validated the result on the field of play.
“Once a match resumes and is concluded under the referee’s authority, the outcome becomes legally valid in sporting terms,” he stated.
CAF, however, relied on its regulations to justify its decision. Article 82 stipulates that any team that refuses to continue a match or leaves the field without authorization is deemed to have abandoned the game. Article 84 further provides for a 3–0 forfeiture and possible disqualification in such circumstances.
The CAF Appeal Board reportedly interpreted Senegal’s temporary walk-off as abandonment, awarding a forfeiture victory to Morocco a decision Dr. Okou described as “highly contentious.”
He argued that for abandonment to be established under CAF rules, there must be a definitive and permanent refusal to continue play. In this instance, he maintained that the interruption was temporary, as the players returned and the match was completed.
The scholar further questioned whether CAF possesses the legal authority to overturn a completed match result, noting that precedents from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) suggest that such actions are only justified in exceptional cases, such as player ineligibility, doping, or match fixing.
“CAF appears to have mischaracterised the incident,” he said. “It was a protest, not an abandonment. By allowing the match to continue, the referee effectively regularised the situation.”
Dr. Okou also warned that retroactively applying forfeiture undermines legal certainty in football, as teams may no longer be able to rely on referees’ decisions as final.
He added that if the matter is taken before CAS, the tribunal would likely examine key legal principles, including proportionality, legal certainty, and the hierarchy between FIFA’s Laws of the Game and CAF’s internal regulations.
While acknowledging CAF’s authority to sanction misconduct, Dr. Okou insisted that such powers should not extend to rewriting match outcomes after they have been lawfully concluded.
“Legally and doctrinally, the referee’s authority is supreme during the match. CAF’s disciplinary provisions apply only where abandonment is definitive,” he said.
He concluded that CAF’s decision could be deemed “ultra vires” and may ultimately be overturned if challenged at the international arbitration level.
Dr. Okou, who is also a certified training development advisor, battle fitness specialist, and international wrestling referee, has contributed extensively to the intersection of sports governance, law, and human performance
The AFCON 2025 decision continues to generate debate within football and legal circles, with stakeholders closely watching for possible arbitration proceedings that could redefine the balance between regulatory enforcement and on-field authority in the sport.
If punishment is to be applied in any controversy, then it must be done with fairness, balance, and accountability across all parties involved. It is not enough to single out players while ignoring the role of match officials, whose decisions often shape the outcome of the game.
In the case involving Senegal national football team, any disciplinary action taken against the players should be matched with a thorough review of the referees’ conduct. Football operates on the principle of fairness, and referees are entrusted with upholding the integrity of the game. When that trust is questioned, it becomes imperative that they too are held accountable.
Referees, under the authority of Confederation of African Football (CAF), are expected to maintain neutrality, consistency, and professionalism at all times. If there is evidence of poor judgment, bias, or failure to apply the rules correctly, then disciplinary measures should not be limited to players alone. Accountability must be comprehensive.
