Many years ago, I parted ways with the game of football, of course not as a player but a supporter. I was becoming hypertensive because of Arsenal, an English team which had no business with me. That is why I do not support any team anywhere in the world. The game is like a missed, it has no space on my calendar.
However, a friend asked me to say something about the recent Confederation of African Football decision in which Senegal was stripped of its 2025-2026 African Cup of Nations (AFCON) in favour of Morocco. They relied on Articles 82, 83 and 84 of the Confederation of African Football (CAF) regulations hence a serious dent on the game of football.
The decision was labeled by Senegal as “unjust” and “grossly unlawful,” triggering an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). While critics call it a high-handed, unprecedented, and “political” move, proponents argue it is a rigid enforcement of the Rules against Senegal’s temporary walk-off. We do not know who trust as far as this issue is concerned.
Some Moroccan players including Achraf Hakimi have stood in solidarity with Senegal saying the Trophy and all that come with it should remain with the Senegalese. Some Moroccans have asserted that their complaint to CAF was not to be declared winners but to expose AFCON for their high appetite for quick dirty money.
Let us separate sentiments from the reality aware that many Ugandans are making noise not because the decision was unfair but because as a country, our football record with the Maghreb region has been very bad. For this reason, many of us are not looking at this controversy objectively, a temptation that I am trying to avoid in my analysis.
This year’s Africa Cup of Nations final was a football match played on 18 January 2026 at the Prince Moulay Abdellah Stadium in Rabat, Morocco. It determined the winners of 2025-2026 AFCON, the 35th edition of the biennial African Tournament organized by CAF, and was between Senegal’s Lions of Teranga and the hosts Atlas Lions of Morocco.
First forward, it is not disputed that Senegal walked off the pitch without permission from the referee in protest of both a disallowed goal and detrimental Video Assistant Referee (VAR) decision in stoppage time. However, they later returned to the pitch after 17 minutes on the request of Sadio Mane, and played out the match originally to a 1–0 win after extra time.
After the match, the Moroccan filed a complaint walk off resulting in CAF launching a disciplinary investigation. On 17 March 2026, the CAF Appeal Board made a finding that Senegal’s behaviour before the match ended constituted a match forfeiture. The result was overturned, awarding Morocco a 3-0 victory and the 2025/2026 AFCON title.
I want to ask a question that may not need an answer, what punishment has been handed to AFCON organizers and the Referee, what would happen if Morrocco had won the match, would the Moroccans have complained if they had a three-goal advantage and what would CAF do on realizing that Morrocco’s victory was a “fruit of a poisonous tree”
The Senegalese government has condemned the ruling, calling it an “unjustified attempt at dispossession” and a “manifestly erroneous interpretation of regulations” hence their appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sports. Without offending the sub judice rule, let us analyze CAF’s decision in light of what took place on and off the pitch.
Anyone who has played football knows it for a fact that the referee’s decision is final and can only be upheld, or overturned by the same referee while on the pitch. This position is clearly captured in the CAF regulations stating that the referee’s decision is final and aligns well with the FIFA’s rules governing the game of football.
While the rules of the Game state that a referee’s decision regarding facts connected with play is final, this applies strictly to decisions made during the match within the framework of the rules. Exceptions exist where a decision can be changed on the field, overturned by technology, or reviewed post-match due to administrative or disciplinary protocols.
The 2026 AFCON final highlighted this conflict, where a referee allowed a match to continue (making the result final), but the CAF Appeals Board later overturned it to a 3-0 forfeiture, setting a precedent that boardroom decisions can override on-field results. In summary, while the referee is the final authority on the pitch, CAF disciplinary committees retain the authority to retroactively deem a match a forfeit due to disciplinary violations.
I will draw our attention to Article 82 of the CAF African Cap of Nations Regulations which stipulates that if a team refuses to play or leaves the pitch before full-time without the referee’s authorization, it is considered a loser and is eliminated from the competition. This regulation often leads to a 3-0 forfeiture when combined with Article 84.
The key point to note when interpreting Article 82 and 84 of the Regulations is that it covers teams that “withdraw from a match, fail to report, or abandon the pitch without permission”. For starters, Senegal did not withdraw from the march, it did not fail to report but abandoned the pitch without permission, thereby offending the rules. Important to note also is that some of the Senegalese players remained on the pitch.
By the CAF decision, walking off, even if players return later, can still result in a forfeiture. The question however is that can that CAF decision stand given the peculiar circumstances of the 2025-2026 AFCON final game, I respectfully believe the answer is a no. This could have been a misinterpretation of the rules or the art work of corruption.
When players walk off or abandon the game whichever way you look at it, the referee is expected to make a decision in line with Articles 82, 83 and 84 but where he fails or refuses, the Moroccan players should have refused to play demanding for their three goals and on refusal forward their grievance to CAF for consideration. Am told the committee was not constituted and that competence of the could also become an issue.
Otherwise, what happened at the AFCON finals was absolutely against CAF Regulations but amounted to condonation which in my view is a valid excuse not to overturn the results. What happened is defined in law and anywhere in the world as condonation which is the voluntary forgiveness or overlooking of a wrongdoer’s actions, implying acceptance and a decision not to punish or act against the misconduct.
It often serves as a legal defense, for actions and or inactions that have been overlooked. In law, this requires knowledge of the facts, forgiveness, and sometimes restoration of rights. Otherwise, how do you explain a situation where Senegal breaches the Regulations, then they come back on the pitch, the referee ignores the illegality, the Moroccan players accept to play and then turn around to complaint afterwards.
In all fairness, the Moroccans ratified every action or inaction that took place or did not take place on that day and must be bound by their ignorance for not taking advantage of Sections 82, 83 and 84 of the very clear CAF Regulations. Both teams together with AFCON and the Referee unknowingly connived to breach the rules and therefore the status quo at final while should be left to stand in favour of Senegal.
Wadada Rogers is a commentator on political, legal and social issues. wadroger@yahoo.ca
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at Submit an Article
