Vipers’ no-show will spark disciplinary showdown

It was supposed to be a day of fire and big rivalries, the kind that makes the StarTimes Uganda Premier League tick. Last season, KCCA and Villa had set the place ablaze as part of Namboole reopening test match double-header.

This one promised more of the same, with Kitara ready to reignite their new mini-revivalry with holders Vipers.

But the spectacle never happened. Kitara arrived on time for their home-away-from-home fixture, only to be greeted by silence, empty stands and left shivering in the dressing rooms devoid of opponents.

Vipers had kept their word not to honour any match until their grievances were addressed. On the official sheet, one half listed Kitara’s 11+13 players while the other floated a heavy, unspoken statement with emptiness.

Referee Shamirah Nabadda, already carving a name for herself at home and abroad, stepped onto the pitch into an unfamiliar ritual where she led out one team instead of two.

Kitara warmed up for their return match into the changing room. Murshid Jjuuko, awaiting his debut, must have wondered if it was some cruel joke. But it was all too real.

Clash of letters

Vipers had repeatedly raised concerns through letters and during several meetings. They argued that the new format was ill-timed, undermined competitive integrity and jeopardized the club’s planning.

Their letters accused Fufa of disrespect and ridicule, stating: ‘We shall not be participating in the announced new format double-header match against Kitara . until a formal response and resolution . are addressed by Fufa.’

Fufa’s response stressed that all consultations had been conducted, circulars had been issued and Vipers had signed Form 901, committing to the league.

The federation insisted that Vipers were obligated to honour the match against Kitara, noting 12 matches had already been played under the same rules.

Rulebook

The absence puts Vipers and Fufa at a crossroads. From here, the federation can either choose dialogue and compromise or just as easily let the rulebook take over, treating the no-show as a clear breach of regulations. Should Fufa decide to enforce the rules strictly, the consequences for Vipers are immediate and severe.

Fufa’s Competition Rules and Ethics Code leave little doubt about what happens when a club refuses to play. Rule 23 of the Fufa Competitions Rules that regulates on fixture management clearly outlines clubs’ obligations and the penalties for defiance.

Rule 23(3) states: ‘In the event that a team or both teams in a scheduled fixture turn(s) up for the match but either one of the teams or both teams refuse(s) to play, shall be sanctioned in accordance with the Ethics and Disciplinary Code.’

In other words, a refusal is automatically a disciplinary matter, leaving Fufa free to move beyond discussion to formal sanction.

Rule 23(4) adds that a club that fails to appear or refuses to play must submit a written explanation within 48 hours to the Tournament Organising Committee in this case UPL secretariat. This is the club’s only immediate chance to justify its absence or protest.

Rule 23(5) is clear and uncompromising: ‘A club that fails to submit a written explanation . or submits a written explanation but the explanation is rejected by the TOC or the FJC, such club shall be sanctioned in accordance with the Ethics and Disciplinary Code.’

Once the explanation is rejected or not submitted, the club faces sanctions under Fufa’s Ethics and Disciplinary Code.

These sanctions are not symbolic. Vipers’ refusal to play as an away team results in a forfeited match, accompanied by a three-point and three-goal deduction from their league tally. For a home team, the penalty is even harsher: six points and six goals deducted. This was last invoked in September 2019 when Proline refused to play Villa.

The rules also guard against persistent defiance. Any club that fails to honour three fixtures in a single season with explanations rejected on all occasions, can be excluded from the league entirely. Beyond exclusion, the Fufa Judicial Committee may impose fines, demotion or personal sanctions on club officials.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *