The Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) Disciplinary Committee’s recent ruling to overturn the 3-point deduction imposed on Bendel Insurance FC has sparked widespread criticism, with many calling for the decision to be appealed.
According to Ibrahim T. Abiola Esq., a legal practitioner, the committee’s decision undermines the authority of the Nigeria Professional Football League (NPFL) and creates a dangerous precedent that could encourage clubs to challenge assault-based sanctions.
“The NFF Disciplinary Committee’s decision is a clear misinterpretation of the NPFL’s rules,” Abiola said. “Rule C11 explicitly states that a 3-point deduction is mandatory for any club found culpable in the assault of a match official. There is no condition that the assault must be grievous – the presence of physical aggression itself is enough to trigger the penalty.”
Abiola noted that the NPFL’s decision was based strictly on its own framework and rules, which every club is obligated to abide by. “By overturning the only mandatory sanction in the judgment, the NFF Disciplinary Committee has undermined the league’s authority, raising concerns about whether rules will be enforced consistently moving forward,” he said.
The controversy surrounding the NPFL’s Summary Jurisdiction Notice (Form 16), which found Bendel Insurance FC guilty of several breaches, including failure to provide adequate security, failure to ensure proper conduct of supporters, assault on match officials, and conduct capable of bringing the game into disrepute.
The NPFL had imposed a fine of N1 million for each of the breaches, as well as a compensatory payment of N250,000 to each of the assaulted match officials. However, the NFF Disciplinary Committee overturned the 3-point deduction, stating that the attack on the referees was not grievous enough to warrant such a punishment.
Abiola argued that the committee’s decision creates a dangerous loophole that could haunt Nigerian football. “With this ruling, any club facing a points deduction for assault on match officials can now argue that the attack was ‘not grievous.’ This shifts the focus away from preventing assaults and instead creates room for clubs to negotiate their punishment based on subjective interpretations of ‘grievous harm,'” he said.
The legal practitioner also noted that the decision undermines referee protection and match safety. “Referees and match officials are already working under challenging conditions in Nigerian football. By allowing clubs to escape full punishment for an acknowledged assault, the committee has made it harder for match officials to feel safe, potentially discouraging competent referees from officiating crucial league games,” he said.
Abiola called on the NPFL to appeal the decision or ensure that no such loophole is exploited in future cases. “It is time for the NPFL to take a stand and ensure that rules are not bent to accommodate specific clubs or interests. The credibility of Nigerian football is at stake,” he said.
The controversy has sparked widespread debate, with many calling for the NFF Disciplinary Committee to reconsider its decision. As Abiola noted, “Football thrives on integrity and discipline, and the NPFL rules must be enforced as they are written. The NFF Disciplinary Committee’s decision to override a clear, mandatory sanction under Rule C11 weakens the foundation of discipline in Nigerian football.”
