By Wakawaka Sports
Questions have emerged over the decision by some stakeholders to approach an Abuja court seeking to stop the ongoing Nigeria Basketball Federation (NBBF) Electoral Congress, following reports that the court declined to halt the process and scheduled the case for hearing on a future date.
The development has brought the dispute-resolution provisions of the NBBF 2019 Constitution into focus, particularly the articles dealing with arbitration, internal appeals, suspension of member associations and the jurisdiction of regular courts.
A review of the provisions cited by stakeholders suggests that the federation’s constitution establishes specific procedures for resolving disputes within Nigerian basketball, while recognising 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 recognised sports dispute-resolution bodies, including the National Court of Arbitration for Sport (NCAS), the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the Basketball Arbitral Tribunal (BAT), where applicable.
The provisions also address the binding nature of arbitral awards and the exclusion of regular courts from the federation’s dispute-resolution framework.
Similarly, Article 30.7 reportedly stipulates that internal disputes should first be referred to the NBBF Appeals Panel, with further appeals proceeding to CAS in Lausanne or NCAS.
The provisions have raised questions about whether the decision to approach a regular 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 Board meeting, a two-thirds quorum, 14 days’ notice and an opportunity for the affected member association to respond in writing.
The provisions further indicate that expulsion requires ratification by the next Congress.
Article 35 of the NBBF Constitution also reportedly provides that FIBA’s General Statutes take precedence where the federation’s statutes are silent or unclear.
FIBA’s governance framework places emphasis on resolving basketball disputes through recognised internal mechanisms and sports arbitration.
However, determining whether the court action violates these provisions would require a review of the complete constitutional text, the reliefs sought by the applicants and the legal arguments before the court.
The court’s reported refusal to stop the Electoral Congress does not amount to a final determination of the substantive dispute, as the case has been scheduled for hearing on a future date.
The development has once again highlighted the need for stakeholders in Nigerian basketball to respect established governance procedures and pursue dispute resolution through the appropriate legal channels.
As the NBBF electoral process continues, stakeholders will be watching closely to see how the court proceedings unfold and what implications they may have for the federation’s administration and the future of basketball in Nigeria.
