The dispute over the validity of Border Rugby’s recent elections could be heading to court, with the faction opposing the new executive indicating it is left with no option.
SA Rugby sent feedback on Wednesday afternoon regarding the two-day mediation meeting that took place behind closed doors with warring Border officials in KuGompo City last week.
The mother body had sent officials to oversee the gathering they hoped would achieve an agreement between the newly elected executive led by Theo Mvalo and the group led by pre-election executive member Asanda Simoyi, who is opposing the structure.
The two camps could not find common ground despite solutions for a way forward being put on the table, leaving the mediators with little to report back to SA Rugby.
An email seen by the Daily Dispatch from SA Rugby’s legal and compliance head, Chantal du Pisani, addressed to Mvalo, Simoyi and the union’s general manager, Mthunzi Hewu, said any final determination regarding the validity of the AGM and elections could only be made by a court of competent jurisdiction.
That, though, should be the last step, she said.
Du Pisani advised that the parties should convene a special general meeting (SGM) to resolve the dispute.
“In light of the failure of the mediation process and in the interests of restoring administrative certainty, governance stability and unity within BRU, Saru guides all stakeholders to give urgent and bona fide consideration to the constitutional mechanisms available under the BRU constitution for resolution of the current impasse,” Du Pisani said.
“Without requiring any party to abandon, waive or concede its interpretation of the constitution or its position concerning the validity of the AGM of August 2, 2026, Saru’s considered view is that the parties should engage constructively regarding the convening of a special general meeting in accordance with the provisions of the BRU constitution.”
Du Pisani said Saru expected strict compliance with the provisions of the BRU constitution, the applicable notice requirements, the quorum requirements, the voting provisions, and the BRU guidelines on election requirements and processes and any associated vetting procedures applicable to prospective candidates.
Border had issued a notice for an SGM for September 13.
The agenda related to operational and governance matters, including reports, club matters and a notice of motion from the Chris Hani District Union.
Du Pisani, however, recommended that additional items be included.
“The notice does not expressly identify the current leadership dispute, the filling of any office-bearer vacancy, or the conduct of an election as business to be transacted at that meeting.
“In addition, the BRU constitutional mandate of matters to be discussed at an AGM (previously not conducted) is also not addressed (inclusive of but not limited to approval of the annual financial statements, appointment of auditors, etc).
“These are additionally major matters that should be addressed on an urgent basis,” she said.
Should the SGM route not work, Du Pisani said the dispute would ultimately require determination through appropriate legal proceedings.
Simoyi told the Dispatch they were in consultation with their legal team on the way forward but confirmed they might take the legal route after the report from SA Rugby.
Simoyi had written to SA Rugby asking for it to intervene, pointing to alleged constitutional breaches and certain procedures not being followed before the elections.
Contacted for comment, Mvalo said the new executive would carry on with its planned agenda for the SGM.
In the mediation session in KuGompo City, Mvalo and company had proposed a similar way forward to the SGM mechanism.
The suggestions brought by Mvalo’s camp were for its newly constituted executive to step down and open up vacancies to be contested at a special meeting in 21 days.
But that proposal was shot down by Simoyi’s faction.
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.