Friday, March 1, 2024

Blame game on as BFA gives in to Pulah demands

Current regime blames the previous regimes

They in turn say the current regime is not blameless

Following Botswana Football Association (BFA)’s decision not to contest Pulah Sports Marketing (PSM) P2, 5 million invoice for Premier League (BPL) consultancy services a blame game has now ensued as those involved try to fix the blame and not the problems facing the association.

Addressing the matter in a recent interview with Sunday Standard, BFA president Maclean Letshwiti laid the blame squarely on his predecessors for not being pro-active in addressing the matter, adding the FA would not have been in the mess had there been proper leadership.

While Letshwiti was adamant that previous regimes should have realised that they had no case and settled out of court after their star witness recanted, those close to the previous regime are now accusing the current regime of failing to act in the best interest of the FA.

Sources close to the previous regime are of the view that the Letshwiti led FA should have gone ahead and defended the case in court, while those close to Bennett Mamelodi say the former BPL CEO and PSM shareholder would never had agreed to testify negatively against his own company.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a source close to the previous regime said the current regime is not blameless in the matter.

The source said BFA had a defendable case against PSM and alleged that ‘had it not been for conflict of interest, BFA would have pressed ahead with the matter.’

“BFA’s major point of contention in the matter was that the PSM contract was never signed by the right people and can therefore not be deemed legally binding to the BFA,” the source revealed.

“The contract was signed by PSM and BPL without the involvement of the BFA. The BPL is not a legal body and cannot sign contracts or be sued, hence every contract involving the BPL should be signed by the BFA president,” continued the source.

“It was against this background that the BFA felt they had a strong case and were willing to take the matter to the courts,” said the source.

The source then laid into the current BFA regime for not putting up defence, insinuating conflict of interest.

“In the matter, Pulah in liquidation is represented by Armstrongs Attorneys while the BFA legal advisor is from the same company. By virtue of the person advising the BFA being from the same law firm as the one opposing the association, this is a clear case of conflict of interest,” the source said.

Concerning the involvement of Mamelodi as the FA’s key witness, the source said the intention was to let him elucidate on the nature of services provided and if each of the mandated service was fully rendered.

For some insiders in the BFA, the former BPL CEO never had intentions to testify against his former company.

“As far as I could tell, this was a straight forward matter as PSM had done all required of them and deserved to be paid. Unfortunately, the BFA leadership saw things differently and were adamant the matter be taken to court while it could have been easily settled,” the source revealed.

On Mamelodi, the source revealed the former CEO never seemed comfortable with the idea of testifying against PSM.

“If it was according to him, he would have stayed as far away from the case as possible. He was dragged into the case but there was no way he could have contested that PSM had not delivered,” the source said.

According to the source, when Mamelodi did his final report to the BPL as an employee of PSM, he emphasised that the company had even delivered beyond its mandate.

“He had penned a final report for the BPL dated 11th June 2011 in which he put it on record that the company had delivered. There was no way he was going to recant on the report he had authored,” the source said.


Read this week's paper