Musa Hassan Bility v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

At a glance

Parties

Musa Hassan Bility (Liberia, former President of the Liberian Football Association) v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

Case no.

CAS 2019/A/6409

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal procedure under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (Articles R47 et seq.); FIFA regulations, with Swiss law applying in addition

Instrument

FIFA Code of Ethics, 2018 edition (with comparison to the 2012 edition); Article 56 of the 2021 FIFA Statutes

Panel

Prof. Martin Schimke (President), João Nogueira Da Rocha, Rui Botica Santos

Sector

Football governance; ethics

Outcome

Appeal dismissed (2 May 2023). The FIFA Adjudicatory Chamber decision of 12 February 2019 was confirmed.

Amount

Sanction upheld: a ban of 10 years from all football-related activity and a fine of CHF 500,000. Before FIFA, Mr Bility was also ordered to pay procedural costs of CHF 3,000.

The dispute

Musa Hassan Bility was President of the Liberian Football Association (LFA) between 2010 and 2018. He was also a member of a FIFA committee and, from 2017, of the CAF Executive Committee. After a forensic review by Control Risks, the Adjudicatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee found him guilty of three breaches of the 2018 FIFA Code of Ethics: misappropriation of funds (Article 28), accepting benefits (Article 20) and conflict of interest (Article 19). The conduct concerned: - a USD 50,000 FIFA Ebola grant that was not used through the agreed partnership with the Liberian National Red Cross Society; - FIFA funds for renovating the Antoinette Tubman Stadium, where the contractor was chosen without a tender and USD 141,000 was unaccounted for; - repayments by the LFA to his company Srimex; - payments by the LFA to the Stone Haven Guest House, owned by his wife. He was banned for ten years and fined CHF 500,000. On appeal he argued that the wrong edition of the Code had been applied (lex mitior, mandatory minimum sanctions), that his procedural rights had been breached, that FIFA had not met its burden of proof, and that the sanction was disproportionate and, citing Matuzalem, contrary to his right to work.

Key holdings

1. The 2018 Code of Ethics applies. Its provisions on misappropriation, gifts and conflict of interest are in substance the same as in the 2012 edition. The differences are negligible, so applying the 2018 edition did not prejudice the appellant or breach his right to be heard. ¶¶ 113–118
2. Under Article R57, the CAS reviews the case afresh (de novo), and this cures any procedural defects in the FIFA proceedings. Interview transcripts from witnesses who could not be cross-examined are admitted as documentary evidence and weighed accordingly. The appellant's right to be heard was not violated. ¶¶ 122–124, 135–140
3. Misappropriation (Article 28). The Ebola grant could only be used under the agreement with the Liberian National Red Cross Society. Any other use, made without FIFA's authorisation, was unauthorised. For the stadium renovation, USD 141,000 recorded as paid to the contractor Musons was never received by Musons. No tender was held as Article 5.4 of the General Regulations for FIFA Development Programmes requires. The appellant, as the central decision-maker, misappropriated FIFA funds. ¶¶ 173–175, 190–196, 210, 222–225
4. Accepting benefits (Article 20). USD 78,725.30 paid by the LFA to Srimex beyond the amounts loaned had no authorisation, legal basis or supporting documents. It was an undue pecuniary advantage. ¶¶ 230–240
5. Conflict of interest (Article 19). The appellant acted in a conflict of interest in the transactions between the LFA and Srimex, which he owned and ran as CEO. He did the same in the LFA's use of Stone Haven, owned by his wife and managed by his son. There was no formal disclosure to FIFA and no collegiate approval by the LFA's bodies. ¶¶ 243–255
6. The 10-year ban is proportionate. Misappropriation is the most serious offence because Article 28 sets no maximum ban. The Adamu, Diakité, Platini, Blatter and Valcke precedents are not comparable. ¶¶ 270–277
7. The CHF 500,000 fine is proportionate and does not breach the right to work. The Matuzalem case is not comparable, and the appellant earns his wealth from an oil and gas business outside football. ¶¶ 278–286

Procedural history

1. 10 April 2018Control Risks delivers its forensic accounting report on the LFA.
2. 18 May 2018The FIFA Investigatory Chamber opens formal investigation proceedings against Mr Bility.
3. 12 February 2019After a hearing, the Adjudicatory Chamber finds breaches of Articles 19, 20 and 28 and imposes a 10-year ban and a fine of CHF 500,000. The grounds are notified on 24 July 2019.
4. 1 August 2019Statement of Appeal filed with the CAS.
5. 27 September 2019Panel confirmed, with Prof. Martin Schimke as President.
6. 20 May 2022Hybrid hearing held in Lausanne, after COVID-19 postponements.
7. 2 May 2023Award: the appeal is dismissed and the FIFA decision confirmed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Martin Schimke President, CAS Panel — appointed by the institution (appointed by the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division; disclosed that Bird & Bird partners had a FIFA commercial instruction; no challenge was raised)
• João Nogueira da Rocha Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the claimant
• Rui Botica Santos Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the respondent

For the claimant

Schellenberg Wittmer Ltd. · White & Case LLP · Paolo Torchetti

For the respondent

FIFA

Experts

Jonathan Brown (respondent) · Control Risks (respondent)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• FIFA Code of Ethics
• misappropriation of funds
• conflict of interest
• offering and accepting gifts
• Liberian Football Association
• Ebola grant
• Antoinette Tubman Stadium
• Srimex
• Stone Haven Guest House
• tender process
• lex mitior
• tempus regit actum
• comfortable satisfaction
• de novo review
• proportionality of sanction
• 10-year ban
• Matuzalem
• football

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.