On March 17, 2026, the Confederation of African Football (CAF) made a resounding decision by stripping Senegal of its African champion title and awarding it to Morocco by default. However, many Senegalese, including the former president of the Senegalese Football Federation (FSF), have criticized the jury's composition, the quorum, and the incompatibility of one of its members, calling into question the legitimacy of this decision. Let's break it down to separate fact from fiction. Patrice Motsepe, president of CAF / DR ‹ › On March 17, 2026, the Appeals Jury of the Confederation of African Football (CAF) delivered a decision that has sparked widespread debate across the continent: Senegal was stripped of its African champion title, which was then awarded to Morocco by default with a 3-0 score. Since this ruling, three main procedural concerns have been circulating on social media and within the Senegalese media: the reduced composition of the jury, the absence of a quorum, and the potential conflict of interest involving one of its members. We have scrutinized these claims against CAF's official regulations. Five out of nine members were present. Is this a procedural flaw? Augustin Senghor, an executive member of CAF and former president of the Senegalese Football Federation, questioned the jury's composition, referencing a statement from a Djiboutian member. However, the member in question did not express dissatisfaction about being excluded from the jury but was instead concerned about his name being circulated online. THANK YOU FOR THE COURAGE! WHY WERE SOME MEMBERS EXCLUDED? ETHICALLY, HOW CAN A FEDERATION PRESIDENT (TUNISIA) SIT IN ON A SUPPOSEDLY INDEPENDENT APPEALS JURY? WHY DID A MEMBER REFUSE TO VOTE ON THIS DECISION? pic.twitter.com/G6nKU8FlQM — Augustin Senghor (@AugustinSengho2) March 20, 2026 This is not the only oversight or misinterpretation by the lawyer, who is also an arbitrator at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). His recent tweets, written entirely in capital letters, suggest a sense of urgency. The CAF Appeals Jury panel comprises nine members: Roli Daibo Harriman (Nigeria, president), Faustino Varela Monteiro (Cape Verde, vice-president), Moez Ben Tahar Nasri (Tunisia), Espoir Asogbavi Komlan (Togo), Masauko Timothy Msungama (Malawi), Moses Ikanqa (Namibia), Hamoud T'feil Bowbe (Mauritania), Mohamed Robleh Djama (Djibouti), and Lubamba Ngimbi Hector (Congo). Only five were present in Cairo on March 17. Is this regular? The CAF Disciplinary Code (CDC), in its Section 5 on common rules for jurisdictional bodies, outlines the framework in two key articles. Article 15 states that both the Disciplinary and Appeals Juries include a President, a vice-president, and the necessary number of members, without specifying a minimum or maximum. Article 16, concerning sessions, does not mandate full attendance. Thus, although CAF assembled a panel of nine members, no regulation requires all to be present at each hearing. This principle aligns with the practices of similar sports disciplinary bodies. A disciplinary body can validly deliberate with at least three members present; decisions are made by a majority of those present, and in case of a tie, the president casts the deciding vote. This rule, applied by the FRMF (Moroccan federation) in its disciplinary code inspired by the CAF CDC, reflects standard practice at the continental level. The presence of five out of nine members does not constitute a procedural flaw, and the lawyer and CAF Comex member should be aware of this unless he is engaging in populism. The CDC requires only a minimum quorum, leading us to the second point. Is a quorum necessary to validate the decision? Several Senegalese commentators argue that without an explicitly reached quorum, the decision would be null. This assertion is correct in principle but requires clarification. The CDC does not specify a quorum number for the Appeals Jury. However, Article 16, applicable to both jurisdictional bodies, indeed establishes a minimum presence threshold. The rule of a minimum of three members is adopted across African football disciplinary codes inspired by the CDC, including those of the FRMF and FECAFOOT. Decisions are made by a majority of those present, and the president has a casting vote in the event of a tie. With five members present out of nine, this more than satisfies the implicit threshold of three members. Therefore, the decision is valid on this arithmetic point alone. However, the quorum requirement also has a qualitative aspect: the presence of members must be legally regular. This is where the case becomes complicated, as illustrated by the third point. Does the presence of the Tunisian Federation president constitute an incompatibility? Moez Ben Tahar Nasri, a Tunisian, sat on the jury on March 17, 2026. His presence raises concerns: since his election as president of the Tunisian Football Federation in January 2025, Nasri has held a federal position. Article 13 of the CAF Appeals Jury regulations is clear: a federation president cannot sit on this body. Article 19 of the CDC, titled "Incompatibilities," prohibits any member of a CAF jurisdictional body from simultaneously holding an official position within a member national federation. This ensures the structural independence of the judging bodies from the entities they may have to adjudicate. Why was he not removed from the appeals jury panel as early as January 2025? Previously, as a simple vice-president of the jury, Nasri held no federal position. But for the past 14 months, he has been leading a CAF member federation while adjudicating a dispute between two other member federations. On this point, Augustin Senghor is right as it touches on an ethical issue, as he notes. The 2023 CAF Statutes clarify the requirement for an independent member to chair the jurisdictional bodies, defined as any member "having no contractual link with CAF, nor with his national association, and being neither a member of the CAF Executive Committee nor a member of the Executive Committee of his national association, during the four years preceding his election." This standard of independence, applied by analogy, excludes even more so a sitting national federation president. The legal consequence: in sports disciplinary law, an irregularity in the composition of a jurisdictional body could lead to the nullification of the decision rendered, during the appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) announced by the Senegalese Football Federation.
