ZIFA has demanded that the Sports and Recreation Commission (SRC) withdraws the suspension of the association’s general-secretary Joseph Mamutse, arguing that his ban was unlawful and unprocedural. BY HENRY MHARA The SRC on Thursday last week suspended Mamutse and its director-general Prince Mupazviriho to pave way for investigations into how a number of national football teams were cleared for foreign assignments Mamutse is also blamed for the recent disqualification of the Young Warriors from the Under-17 Cosafa tournament on age-cheating allegations. However, Zifa has come out in defence of Mamutse, with the local football governing body writing to the sports regulator demanding for his reinstatement. Through their lawyers Ngarava, Moyo and Chikono Legal Practitioners, Zifa gave SRC 24 hours to withdraw the suspension, failure to which they have threatened to institute litigation as well as report the matter to Fifa. The ultimatum was served to SRC on Tuesday. It was not clear yesterday if SRC had responded to the letter. SRC invoked section 30 of the SRC Act when coming up with the suspensions. However, Zifa has poked holes in the section, arguing that Mamutse was not given a chance to defend himself before he was suspended. “The decision by SRC was arrived at without following the procedure, and in any event, it is unlawful,” Zifa wrote. “Section 30 (1)(c) of the Act is adjudicative in nature and not investigative. The SRC can only resort to section 30 of the Act after having conducted its own investigation and found the association concerned guilty. For this to be done, the association should be accorded an opportunity to be heard. In casu, you have arrived at a guilty verdict for our client without having accorded it an opportunity to be heard. It is our view that section 30 of the Act should be read in conjunction with the provisions of section 68 and 57 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. The said constitutional provisions are codified in the Administrative Justice Act. It is trite that the SRC cannot make an administrative decision without observing the audi alteram partem rule. To that extent, the decision to suspend our client’s general-secretary was arrived at unprocedurally.” Zifa has also threatened to escalate the issue to Fifa in the event that SRC does not relent. “Further, and in any event, our client is an affiliate of Fifa. The governing statutes for the administration of our client’s affairs are clear that they do not allow any third party interference in the administration of its affairs. Our client’s view is that the suspension of its general-secretary by the SRC constitutes direct interference in the administration of our client’s affairs. Our client’s constitution, statutes and by laws have adequate provisions to ensure that they deal with the issues that are being raised in your letter of suspension. Accordingly, our client is pursuing the issues raised in your letter separately without the involvement of SRC. Once the investigations are complete, you shall be notified. As such, the decision b