Palmer vs GFA: CAS ruling beckons as Lawyer Amanda Clinton releases a statement on possible outcome

Ahead of the release of CAS’s ruling on the disqualified Ghana Presidential candidate Wilfred Osei “Palmer” versus the Ghana FA case on Friday July 17, Lawyer Amanda Clinton, a candidate for the 2019 Ghana FA Presidential election, has released a statement to tactfully assess the matter and what the likely income would be.

Lawyer Amanda who was a candidate in the said elections which saw Kurt Edwin Simeon Okraku elected President of the GFA in October last year, has objectively opined on the steps CAS will take in deciding the case, the likely evidences the world sports court may have to review to inform their decision – which is to either grant the prayer of the complainant (Palmer) by nullifying the election and order for a re-election or otherwise. Amanda acknowledged without prejudice, that though she has not “had a chance to review the full evidence before CAS in Palmer’s case”, she envisages an outcome favourable to the parties, especially that which will be in the interest of the entire nation, considering the current situation (covid-19 pandemic)

Below is the full statement of Lawyer Amanda Clinton on the case:

Statement from: Lawyer Amanda Clinton

-GFA Presidential Candidate 2019 -Lawyer who wrote formal representations to FIFA in 2018 as to why the Association should not be dissolved-Founder of the Law Office of Clinton Consultancy 

“I haven’t had a chance to review the full evidence before CAS in Palmer’s case.
What I can say however is that:-
1. CAS will look at whether Palmer was discriminated against in terms of being excluded from competing at the Gfa Presidential Elections 2019. They will also be looking at whether objectively speaking,  it can be said Palmer  has proven ‘unfair exclusion’ (if indeed that was the case, which I really don’t know). Evidence CAS may have been invited to review is likely to include  e.g match fixing, bribery and other serious football  malfeasance of other Presidential candidates as documented previously (at least 3 of the original Presidential candidates 2019).

2. The Dzamefe Commission Report a few years ago also documented a few notable people-what other 2019 Presidential candidates have done before. We also cannot forget Gfa’s Ethics Committee findings a few years ago for multiple presidential candidates which may or may not be before CAS for consideration. I have not had a chance to review the full matter since understandably I am not retained in a case where I am a Presidential Candidate.

3. I do however know what has gone before Gfa’s ethics committee is allegations of professional matchfixing, age changing, bribery, non payments etc. From multiple Presidential candidates in the past.

4. Ultimately, I dont know how Covid-19 will affect CAS’s decision. If its easier to just let the standing President carry on or if the season is not in play, its easier to assemble a quick election should CAS decide that a re-election should take place or if its too dangerous to get delegates to assemble under the circumstances so maintain the status quo – Kurt.

5. CAS will have their own interpretation of whether it can be said that Palmer had an obligation to pay GFA for the transfer of  a player (maybe he legally did, maybe he didnt, I haven’t seen the paperwork). However compared to other football owners and Presidential candidates (2019), it may be unfair to have excluded just him so exclude all at the first election or include all, failing which include all now at a re-election (2020).

6. This depends on whether CAS takes the Normalization Committee’s role as the ultimate decision maker who had the right to assemble whichever Vetting Committee they wanted and took the recommendations of the Vetting Committee. Furthermore, CAS may want to adhere to Fifa’s confirmation of agreeing with the NC’s decision or they may look at whether it was unfair to exclude Palmer. I don’t have a magic ball to determine what CAS’s final decision will be but it will be interesting either way.

7. Country specific considerations may factor in.  Government may have lobbied at a high level to maintain the status quo at present since football appears to be about lobbying. That however is pure speculation and the goverment is doing a very good job on the Covid-19 front so it is more likely that government is focused on keeping Covid 19 figures down and winning an election than being interested in the outcome of CAS’s decision this Friday for Palmer’scase. 

8. Let’s wait and see! Exclude  “all or none” at first instance (the Presidential Election held in 2019) or go for re-election in 2020.
Interesting times!