We were not surprised, but they did it again. SAFA released a statement on November 15, 2024, to defend its president, who appeared at the Palm Ridge Commercial Crimes Court on Wednesday, November 13. Dr. Jordaan is charged (not just accused) of embezzling the SAFA funds for his use during 2014 and 2018.
Dr. Danny Jordaan is accused, and subsequently changed for allegedly hiring a private security company for his personal protection between 2014 and 2019. He further allegedly used the organization’s resources to hire a public relations company without authorization from the SAFA NEC and allegedly violated SAFA’s statutes thus prejudicing SAFA a loss of R1.3m.
Eight months ago, the Hawks conducted a search and seizure as part of their investigations into the case that was lodged by the former NEC member, Willy Mooka. During the search, a laptop, external hard drives, a USB, and documents were seized.
On November 13, he and the two co-accused appeared in court and were granted R20 000,00 each.
We waited for it, that is, the statement from SAFA. We knew which position they were going to take. The statement did not come out on Wednesday or Thursday, but only on Friday 15. True to form, they never ceased to amaze. They defended Dr. Jordaan against all odds.
Here is the statement. It is not clear if this statement is from the NEC or the CEO’s office. However, it does not explicitly state that it is an NEC statement. Therefore, it is safe to assume that it is from the CEO’s office.
Judging from what other NEC members are saying, it appears that there was a meeting held which they may not have been invited to. We take note of a letter from one of the NEC members, Gladwin White, which categorically states that:
The media report issued by SAFA last night and quoted below does not reflect the consensus or mandate of the SAFA NEC. It bypasses key governance principles outlined in the King IV Report and contravenes SAFA’s own Statutes, undermining transparency, accountability, and stakeholder confidence.
See the full letter here below:
Other NEC members say:
When did the SAFA NEC meet to agree on this statement?
Like many other meetings where I’m not invited, I was not part of this meeting that agreed to the statement.
This is far-fetched and it’s pushing our patience, silence, and discipline to the extreme…
Some of us never received the notice of the meeting from the SAFA CEO’s office and the agenda for the meeting that took the decision to write statements about the SAFA NEC ⚽
But looking at the statement itself, we ask, who wrote and where their thinking caps were? I mean, look at the very first statement that says:
The South African Football Association (SAFA) wishes to condemn in the strongest terms the underhand dealings and tactics that saw SAFA President Dr Danny Jordaan, Chief Financial Officer Gronie Hluyo and Grit Communications Director, Trevor Neethling, appear before the Palm Ridge Magistrate’s Court in the East of Johannesburg this week.
We all know who reported the crime. We also know that this person also alerted the affected parties about the intention to report the crime. Why? There is no working mechanism within SAFA to deal with such issues.
Firstly, the NEC always takes a posture to protect the president. Nothing reported to the NEC against the president will be acted upon. Also ask Gay Mokoena, who also presented a dossier to the NEC, and got the boot for his troubles.
Secondly, the very same NEC and the office of the CEO are gatekeepers to what must go to the Ethics Committee, which is mandated by the SAFA Constitution to look into matters such as these. Look at this very report by Willie Mooka, which the NEC was supposed to refer to the Ethics Committee, but did not. And what about Gay’s dossier? No chance. But the football society does not have confidence in the Ethics Committee anyway. One may ask, what has the Ethics Committee done since its appointment?
Lastly, what does the CEO suggest should be an internal process that is not gatekept and should be used in reporting such matters? She does not say in the statement. Therefore, her statement is both rhetorical and superficial.
Then she says something worrisome. She says:
At the heart of the allegations lies the issue of whether Dr. Jordaan had the legal authority to sign the contract on behalf of SAFA. However, the SAFA Constitution (2018) is unequivocal on this matter. According to Article 39(1), the President and the Chief Executive Officer are duly authorised to represent SAFA legally, including the right to sign contracts and engage in legal proceedings on its behalf.
Really?
Of course, the CEO and the President are authorized by the constitution to represent the association in all its documents, including signing. It is true. However, there is a big difference between signing documents and making decisions. Signing documents comes after a decision has been made. She does not mention in the statement whether the NEC decided to appoint these service providers and pay them. That is what the matter is about – permission from the NEC, not who signed the documents. So we are worried because the CEO and the President must be lines of defense against any rot within the association. In this case, they have shown to be weak links, and therefore compromising the association. How South Africa continues to trust them with such a precious organization, beats us.
Then SAFA goes on to say:
The allegations and/or charges of fraud, theft, corruption are therefore frivolous and baseless, driven more by personal vendettas by disgruntled former members of SAFA who carry a clear agenda to mischaracterise facts and thereby damage the respective good names and reputations of SAFA and its current leadership. It’s a familiar tactic and cowardly attempt to pressure Dr Jordaan to step down amidst mounting public scrutiny. This strategy is not new and was similarly employed during the build-up to the 2018 SAFA elections.
Isn’t surprising that the NPA, the authority in charge of prosecuting in South Africa, has seen it fit to proceed with the prosecution? In addition, the court saw it fit to consider bail at R20 000,00 for each accused based on the weight of the case. With this in mind, is there reliance on any statement that says the charges are frivolous and baseless? Besides, should SAFA be making these pronouncements at all?
A self-respecting organization, when one of theirs has been charged, recognizes that there may be merits in the charges that it may not be aware of. It desists from committing itself to any side. It lets the accused handle his / her matters away from the organization and shields itself from any potential damage that may come out of the case. In this case, SAFA inserts itself in the matter, and yet it is not SAFA that is being accused. Therefore, if they say
…thereby damage the respective names and reputations of the SAFA…
Who are they referring to? Who is damaging their reputation? Is it the accusers or are they doing this to themselves? We all know the answer to this question, including the authors of the statement.
And then we laugh with broken hearts when they say:
Unfortunately, the political contestations between the former and current leadership of SAFA have spilled into the public domain, threatening to undermine the significant progress SAFA has made in developing football in South Africa. This ongoing distraction seeks to detract from the true mission of SAFA, which is to use football as an instrument for nation-building, exploring and nurturing young talent, and achieving lasting social change.
Why do we laugh and yet get heart-broken? When last did SAFA avail money for the LFA grants, where real development should be taken place? They do not even do anything worthwhile for the LFAs except to disrupt them in ensuring that people chosen by national get elected to regional positions. Some LFAs in the Free State are a case in point. So, in that nothingness, who threatens to undermine the significant progress SAFA is making in developing football in South Africa?
They even say:
The attempts to distract the team have failed and Bafana Bafana have now qualified for the AFCON to be held in Morocco next year. Coach Hugo Broos’ team have qualified for a second successive continental tournament and will line up against Africa’s best senior men’s national teams.
They have always tried to use national teams as a thumb to hide behind. Anyone who does not agree with them is painted as against national teams. Well, that is far from the truth.
Of course, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. No one disputes that. And of course, SAFA does not have a step-aside policy. But, regardless of how it feels about people who brought this case up, it has the responsibility to shield itself from reputational damage and potential loss of sponsorships, including diminishing a pipeline of potential sponsorships. They have this responsibility not on behalf of Dr. Danny Jordaan, the National Executive Committee, or the CEO, but on behalf of South Africa. So if they were to play this jurisprudence role, what would be the sensible thing to do? What would be rational conduct, and what position would they have to adopt? Once again, we all know the answer to that question.
And what’s with this thing of referring to people as ‘disgruntled’? Do they even think it’s professional to use that term? What happened to freedom of speech and expression? Should people be labeled with insults if they express what they regard as important from their viewpoint? Who gets to determine whether a person is disgruntled or not? Doesn’t the Constitution prescribe the opposite, like respect, protection, and all those other positive things? More than being an insult, it is also shortsighted. When these insulted people were to be elevated to lead SAFA, what would the authors do? Leave? It’s insulting and shortsighted of the authors of the statement to make use of the ‘disgruntled’ term.
As mentioned above, we are not surprised by the SAFA’s statement. We are aware that they wanted to use its Security Committee to defy the government and the Hawks. But the sensible members of the committee refused to be used as mindless pawns. We also pick up that if they called an NEC meeting, they did not invite its full complement. They may have invited the Emergency Committee, which they are allowed to do. We await to see what the Emergency Committee’s report will be to the NEC.
Nonetheless, we agree with the statement when it says:
The matter is now in the hands of the courts, and we trust that the legal process will be thoroughly and impartially carried out, bringing those responsible for any wrongdoing to justice.
That is what they should have said, not all the jargon that came with the statement. Anyway, we trust that the full might of the law will be applicable. We are not pronouncing guilt on the part of Dr. Jordaan. We do not know the merits of the case nor his defense. We understand that he will be returning to court on the 5th of December 2024. We will follow this case closely.
We wish the Office of the CEO, the NEC, and the Ethics Committee could learn from this ordeal, whether Dr. Jordaan is found guilty or not. To keep SAFA matters internal, then internal platforms must work as they should because, currently, they are not.
END
