The dispute over procedures for the South African Football Association (SAFA) elective congress has taken a local turn after an arbitration ruling dismissed challenges to the Nelson Mandela Bay (NMB) regional leadership and SAFA’s chief executive acknowledged that an outdated statutes extract was circulated to members.
Arbitration clears NMB leadership
The arbitration, brought by three local football associations in Nelson Mandela Bay — identified in reporting as PEEFA, KUYGA and ZWIFA — rejected the relief they sought and effectively upheld the legitimacy of the region’s recently elected leadership, according to coverage of the matter.
The NMB region had nominated incumbent SAFA president Danny Jordaan for a fourth term. The arbitration ruling states,
"In conclusion, I dismiss the relief sought by the requestors in their entirety for the purposes of this arbitration and based substantially on the limited issues raised in the points in limine."
Incorrect statutes extract prompted complaints
The immediate cause of the wider controversy was an information pack circulated to regions and National Executive Committee (NEC) members on 4 September. One provision in the pack, labelled Article 25.10, read: "The current serving President, NEC members and women representatives as envisaged in these Statutes may be nominated by any Region or member and be supported by two other members."
That extract was challenged by the Save Our SAFA (SOS) group, and a video that circulated on social media shows Force For Change chairperson Lebogang Riet at Dingleton police station in the Northern Cape saying he intended to open a case over the matter. In the recording, Riet alleged that the version in the pack was "totally different to Article 25.10" and said the changes aimed to protect the nomination of the president, according to the report.
Following the fallout, SAFA CEO Lydia Monyepao wrote to NEC members to clarify the issue and acknowledged that the information pack had included an incorrect provision from an older version of SAFA’s Statutes, the reporting states.
What this means for Gqeberha football
The arbitration outcome and the admission by SAFA’s administration should provide a degree of certainty for local stakeholders. For clubs, coaches and administrators in Gqeberha and the broader Nelson Mandela Bay area this limits the prospect of immediate administrative upheaval within the region — at least from the challenge addressed in the arbitration.
But the episode underscores ongoing distrust among rival factions ahead of the national elective congress scheduled for 12 September in Midrand, Johannesburg, where incumbent Danny Jordaan faces challenger Sandile Zungu, the owner of AmaZulu FC.
- Arbitration dismissed the challenge to the Nelson Mandela Bay region’s leadership.
- SAFA CEO acknowledged an incorrect statutes extract was distributed in an information pack on 4 September.
- Social media footage and a police visit by a campaign figure amplified the dispute ahead of the 12 September elective congress.
Timeline and key items
| Date / Event | Detail |
|---|---|
| 4 September | Information pack containing an incorrect statutes extract circulated to regions and NEC members. |
| After 4 September | Social media video of Force For Change chairperson at Dingleton police station alleging constitutional changes; report of intention to open a case. |
| Arbitration (undated in report) | Arbitrator dismissed relief sought by the three NMB LFAs (PEEFA, KUYGA and ZWIFA). |
| 12 September | SAFA elective congress in Midrand, Johannesburg. |
Local football administrators should watch how SAFA’s headquarters addresses the statute discrepancy, since procedural errors can be used to fuel further challenges in the run-up to the congress. The arbitration ruling stabilises the immediate position in Nelson Mandela Bay, but the wider governance questions raised will remain relevant to clubs and stakeholders in Gqeberha.
Reporting on the dispute and the CEO’s clarification was carried by national sport coverage; details of the arbitration and the exact wording of the documents were cited in those reports.
