MESULI ZIFO
Long after the explosive bout between Bongani Fule and Jeff Magagane at the Guild Theatre a fortnight ago, their handlers are slugging it out in the boardroom with Boxing SA caught in the middle.
Fule and Magagane waged a memorable war of attrition in a bout that swung to and fro until it was left to the judges to decide the winner.
Two of them saw Fule winning and the third voted for Magagane.
The Gauteng boxer’s camp cried robbery while the boxers continued to exchange fierce words and came close to hitting each other long after the fight had ended.
Magagane’s trainer, Bernie Pailman, accused East London officials of conspiring to rob his boxer, claiming he won seven of the 10 rounds of their featherweight clash.
Pailman’s friend, Colin Nathan, filed the protest to BSA on behalf of Magagane, demanding a review while the boxer retains his fourth ranking and Fule’s challenge of Lindelani Sibisi for the SA featherweight title is put on hold.
This sparked an angry reaction from Fule’s camp, questioning Nathan’s involvement in the saga when he is not part of the Magagane camp.
Fule’s manager, Andile Mshumpela, wrote a strong letter to BSA reminding the regulator of the procedure needed to be followed when lodging a protest.
“We have noted that the protest filed was actually done by Colin Nathan, who does not hold any official role in Magagane’s team,” he said.
“Mr Colin Nathan states in his email to BSA that he has been asked by Bernie Pailman to write and ask for a review and stated that he did it based on his friendship with Mr Pailman.
“According to my knowledge, there is no provision in boxing regulations for someone filing a protest on behalf of another based on friendship.”
Mshumpela reminded BSA of the rejection of the protest he wanted to file on behalf of his former boxer, Enathi Stelle, after he lost a disputed decision to Gcina Makhoba in Durban in 2021.
“I was told back then by BSA acting chief executive Cindy Nkomo that because I did not have a contract with Stelle, my protest would not be entertained.
“We therefore plead for consistency and ask BSA to ignore Nathan’s email, as he has no right whatsoever to represent Magagane.
“BSA is governed by the SA Boxing Act (Act 11 of 2001) and its regulations. It doesn’t care about people’s friendships and relations.”
Mshumpela took exception to Nathan’s demand that Fule’s title challenge to Sibisi must be shelved, insisting the fight against Magagane had no bearing on the challenge.
“This demand by Mr Nathan is illogical and malicious because Bongani Fule was never compelled to fight Jeff Magagane for him to be eligible to fight for an SA title.
“It was our choice to fight Magagane for Fule to gain more experience.
“This therefore means that fighting Magagane was never an elimination fight for Fule as he has been eligible to challenge for the SA title anyway.”
BSA chief operations officer Mandla Ntlanganiso confirmed receiving Mshumpela’s complaint and said the application for the fight review still needed to meet the required standard.
“At the moment, we are dealing with procedural issues relating to this matter,” he said.
Mshumpela said Fule would proceed with his SA title challenge against Sibisi.
Daily Dispatch
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.