JamzNG Latest News, Gist, Entertainment in Nigeria
Post views: 55
By Wakawaka Sports
Questions have emerged over the decision of some stakeholders to approach a court in Abuja seeking to halt the ongoing election conference of the Nigeria Basketball Federation (NBBF), following reports that the court refused to halt the trial and scheduled hearing of the case at a future date.
The development has brought into focus the dispute resolution provisions of the 2019 NBBF Constitution, particularly the articles relating to arbitration, internal appeals, suspension of member associations and the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.
An examination of the provisions cited by stakeholders suggests that the federation’s constitution establishes specific procedures for the resolution of disputes within Nigerian basketball, while recognizing designated sports arbitration bodies.
Article 9.5 and Articles 34.1–34.3 of the NBBF Constitution reportedly provide for independent arbitration, with disputes referred to recognized sports dispute resolution bodies, including the National Court of Arbitration for Sport (NCAS), the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the Basketball Arbitration Tribunal (BAT), where applicable.
The provisions also address the binding nature of arbitral awards and the exclusion of ordinary courts from the federation’s dispute resolution framework.
Similarly, Article 30.7 reportedly states that internal disputes should first be referred to the NBBF appeals committee, with further appeals being lodged with the CAS in Lausanne or the NCAS.
The provisions have raised doubts as to whether the decision to turn to an ordinary court complies with the dispute resolution mechanisms established by the federation’s constitution and applicable FIBA regulations.
On suspension and expulsion of member associations, Articles 16.2–16.6 reportedly prescribe procedures that must be followed before disciplinary measures can be imposed.
These include a properly constituted Council meeting, a two-thirds quorum, 14 days’ notice and the opportunity for the member association concerned to respond in writing.
The provisions also indicate that expulsion requires ratification by the next Congress.
Article 35 of the NBBF Constitution also reportedly provides that the FIBA General Statutes take precedence where the federation’s statutes are silent or unclear.
FIBA’s governance framework places emphasis on the resolution of basketball disputes through recognized internal mechanisms and sports arbitration.
However, determining whether the court action violates these provisions would require a review of the full constitutional text, the remedies requested by the plaintiffs, and the legal arguments before the court.
The Court’s refusal to stop the Electoral Congress does not amount to a final decision of the substantive dispute, as the hearing of the case has been scheduled for a future date.
The development has once again highlighted the need for Nigerian basketball stakeholders to respect established governance procedures and pursue dispute resolution through appropriate legal channels.
As the NBBF election process continues, stakeholders will be watching closely to see how the court proceedings unfold and what implications they may have for the administration of the federation and the future of basketball in Nigeria.
