The highly publicised Teeger affair exposes a "cover up" in South African cricket of political persecution with a chilling effect on the freedom of expression of South African Jewry.
By Craig Snoyman
CricketSA and the Gauteng Central Lions have chosen to cover up their malfeasance in the Teeger matter. They have chosen to sweep under the carpet issues of corporate governance, fraudulent misrepresentations and violations of media contracts which employees and South African cricketers have breached.
David Teeger was charged with bringing cricket into disrepute by making a statement in favour of the Israeli army at a private function. He was not under contract at the time. Five complaints were lodged with the Gauteng Central Lions and from the Lions' initial position that it would send out letters to the complainants acknowledging their concerns, the matter escalated. Soon CricketSA were drawn into the matter and the same five complaints that had been sent to the Lions now formed the basis for a charge brought against Teeger by CricketSA.
Foul Play. Brandishing signs declaring "He's My Captain", protestors outside the HQ of Cricket South Africa declare support for South African Jewish cricketer David Teeger amid ongoing antisemitism scandal. (Photo: Ilan Ossendryver)
Of the complaints lodged, there was one that emanated from Lenasia Cricket Club. Another came from "Diadora", a sponsor of Lions cricket. There is a very clear link between these two complainants. The Chairman of the Lenasia Cricket Club is one Azar Saloojee and the person lodging the complaint on behalf of Diadora is also Azar Saloojee - the same person. The complaint of Diadora South Africa stated that they:
"will not tolerate Mr Teeger playing in any tournament sponsored by Diadora".
Responding to the warranted allegation of discrimination, Diadora's Head Office in Italy were quick to reply that:
- Diadora had no directors in South Africa
- it disassociates itself from the statement made by Saloojee
- Saloojee was not authorized to make such a statement.
Saloojee had made the statement in his personal capacity but as the Chairman of Lenasia Cricket Club and subject to the jurisdiction and sanction of CricketSA, he had abused his authority by falsely misrepresenting facts to Gauteng Lions and CricketSA, even going as far as threatening/ extorting CricketSA.
From the Gauteng Central Lions level, the matter was elevated to CricketSA level, using the same complaints lodged with Gauteng Lions. There is nothing in the constitution of either the Gauteng Lions or CricketSA (the South African Cricket Board) which provides for a matter which has been launched at a franchise level to be dealt with at a national level. The acknowledgement of complaint letter was discarded and Teeger was charged at a national level.
JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA - APRIL 19: Proteas team manager Mohammed Moosajee during the UK tour, ICC Champions Trophy and SA A squads announcement at Bidvest Wanderers Stadium on April 19, 2017 in Johannesburg, South Africa. (Photo by Sydney Seshibedi/Gallo Images)
New complainant statements used in the charge against Teeger were those of Mohammed Moosajee, the President of the Gauteng Lions, Jonathan Leaf-Wright, the CEO of the Gauteng Lions, and that of Pholetsi Moketi, the CEO of Cricket South Africa. For these members to have provided statements, they needed to have received the prior approval of their respective boards. While acknowledging that he did not have permission of the Lions, Moosajee - although somewhat irregular - submitted an affidavit in his personal capacity. Both Moosajee and Moketi - who had charged Teeger for the statement he made in support of Israeli soldiers - failed to recognise the irony in submitting their views of the history of "the occupation of Palestine" and a condemnation of the Israeli Defence Force. But, as no Board approvals were given, all of these statements were unauthorised and irregular. There is no provision for executives to express their personal political opinions or to submit their own voluntary statements in disciplinary charges.
From Batting to Battling as a Jew. Despite David Teeger been exonerated by an independent inquiry for his pro-Israeli army comments made at a private gathering, this did not stop the antisemitic onslaught in South Africa to having him removed from the position of captain for "security" concerns. (Photo: Stock Cricket Image: Pixaba)
Further overt politics was brought into 'play' by the PSA (trade union for public sector workers in South Africa) which went into detail about the "genocidal war against the Palestinians". In all, each of the complainants was given the right to express their opinions freely - some virulently political - against the statement uttered by Teeger
Nonetheless, Teeger was charged with unbecoming conduct and statements detrimental to the game of cricket in violation of the Lions and CricketSA codes of conduct. Teeger was not subject to any social media contract which prevented him from making a statement to the media. His statement was not even made to the media but was made at an awards ceremony at a private function. Employees and cricketers on contract are however prevented from making public statements without the approval of the relevant cricket authority. Hashim Amla, an employee of the Gauteng Lions, as well as contracted SA cricketers Kagiso Rabada and Tabriz Shamsi have all expressed their opinion of the Israel-Hamas war on social media. Each expressed an opinion in favour of the Palestinians. Each has a social media contract preventing them from expressing these opinions publicly.
However, no action has been taken against them!
In an endeavour to have CricketSA explain its position concerning the above issues and take the necessary corrective measures or to explain why these were not necessary, legal correspondence was entered into. First, there was correspondence with CricketSA and Gauteng Lions and thereafter with their legal representatives.
After initial stonewalling by CricketSA, and non-substantive correspondence by their legal representatives, a response was finally received, stating:
"There is no legal obligation on our client to either provide the information that your client seeks or to take any of the measures demanded."
So CricketSA, the custodian of cricket in South Africa which has undertaken to promote, advance, and administer the game of cricket in South Africa and adhere to the general principles contained in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa saw fit to charge Teeger because he expressed his constitutional right to freedom of expression. It sees no reason to explain why it is not adhering to general principles of fairness and good labour practices – at least, certainly not to a mere stakeholder member of the public.
The same CricketSA, which swore to respect and recognise the penalties laid down by members of Cricket South Africa, sees no reason to take measures where numerous clearly identifiable offences arising out of the Teeger matter which are chargeable in terms of CricketSA's rules and regulations and probably even in terms of South Africa's criminal law.
Pitch Im'perfect. Failing to see the true state of South Africa's proverbial cricket pitch, Lawson Naidoo, the chair of CricketSA's board, responds to accusations of antisemitism that they are "not deserving of a response".
While Lawson Naidoo, the chair of CricketSA's board, may say that accusations of antisemitism are "not deserving of a response" let's see how he responds to accusations of malfeasance and double standards now that the matter has gone public.
Double standards where Jews are involved usually suggest antisemitism.
About the writer:
Craig Snoyman is a practising advocate in South Africa.
While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves. LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).
No comments:
Post a Comment