Some repair works were believed to have taken place behind closed doors despite evident tensions that have simmered all summer within the football circles.
However, it had looked like the warring parties, which pitted the BFL chairperson, Nicholas Zakhem on one corner and a group of shareholders on the other, were making inroads in stitching together the pieces of a broken relationship. But it appears they had papered over the cracks.
Tensions have remained high ahead of the Botswana Football Association (BFA) election, scheduled for between August and September, a process expected to accelerate the friction. The aggrieved shareholders, who at one stage were led by former BFA president, Tebogo Sebego and later, Godfrey Ratlhaga, accuse Zakhem of ruling by decree and initiated his ouster.
But the coup-de-tat hit a brick wall at first, in the court of law and recently, the BFA Arbitration Tribunal, which ruled in Zakhem's favour. As the season steamed along, there was a violent jolt this week, when all teams that failed to honour fixtures during the January revolt forfeited points. Only Gaborone United (GU) were left untouched as they had turned up for their matches.
This week's developments saw critics take to social media arguing Zakhem wielded unlimited power and that he holds the ultimate keys to all decision-making at the BFL and beyond. In a 'one-man judge' ruling delivered by the new BFL prosecutor, Charles McErick, on Tuesday, all teams, except GU forfeited three or more points after a decision to boycott action over two weekends in January. In fact, all teams save for GU, Security Systems, and VTM, potentially lost six points. McErick was only appointed on May 2 but has had a brisk time in office and will long be remembered as the man who delivered the 'infamous' judgment. Most of the clubs have remained mum in the wake of the ruling, with none commenting publicly on the developments. However, one of the affected shareholders, speaking on condition of anonymity, dismissed the legality of the judgment.
"The appointment of the one-man judge is unconstitutional and lacks authority from the statutes. The Board has given itself powers that it doesn't have. It's a joke," the official argued. Contacted for comment, acting BFL CEO, Bennett Mamelodi, said his office is constrained from discussing the matter. As of yesterday, no club had indicated intention to appeal. However, a source close to the Premier League said the office was ready to engage further in the case of appeals. "The BFL believes the judgment can withstand any legal test in any forum. People conveniently forget what happened (in January).
The (December) Palapye meeting was declared null and void," the source said. Critics argue that the warring parties could have let bygones-be-bygones, but one BFL shareholder differs. "If you let the issue slide, you are setting a bad precedence. In fact the sanction could have been worse. Yes, there was the option of pardoning clubs but an independent and competent person decided these were the appropriate sanctions. Remember, VTM travelled all the way to Sowa and found gates closed," the official said. "We need to deal with issues rather than pardon or keep postponing.
It is what costs us sponsors. It's important to send out a strong statement. The pressure to deal with the matter came from the BFA," he added. BFA chief executive officer, Mfolo Mfolo said they respect the decision of the BFL chief prosecutor. "We will always respect the decisions taken by judicial bodies because they exercise their independence," he said yesterday. Teams were back on the pitch midweek as clubs digested the ramifications of the recent developments, which could result in wound dehiscence. In medical terminology, wound dehiscence occurs when a surgical incision reopens when healing is still in the early stages.
