The SA featherweight title saga is far from over, despite the BSA arbitration panel issuing a ruling favouring Bongani Fule to get first preference for a shot against champion Lindelani Sibisi.
Siyabulela Hem’s camp, which is contesting who gets first crack at Sibisi’s belt, says it was studying the ruling after accusing the panel of not considering its written submissions.
Fule and Duncan Village’s Hem were in a race to get first preference when Fule signed a contract to face the KwaZulu-Natal champion in Estcourt on Saturday. However, although the ruling freed him to go ahead with the fight, Sibisi’s promoter, Hlula Dladla, indicated that his boxer was not ready for the fight on Saturday.
Fule’s manager, Andile Mshumpela, said negotiations were ongoing to consequently slot the bout into next Saturday’s KayB Promotions tournament at the Guild Theatre.
“If it can’t be done, then we are looking for another promoter because we have trained hard and kept our preparations on track despite the uncertainty of the dispute,” he said.
This has cast aspersions on the arbitration panel’s ruling, which took into consideration the urgency of the matter owing to the fight being planned for Saturday.
In our submission, we contended that policy 11.6 and regulation 17 are in harmony, as no right of any challenger was infringed upon. Fule’s challenge came after Hem and the committee sanctioned the Sibisi-Hem bout on February 10
— Ayanda Matiti, Siyabulela Hem’s promoter
Tribunal hearing chair advocate KJ Mogale-Makinta ruled that Fule should get first nod due to his mandatory position, which superseded the ‘championship policy’ cited by the sanctioning committee when it endorsed Hem’s challenge, owing to his status as the SA junior-featherweight champion.
“The arbitration panel conducted thorough hearings and received oral and written submissions from all relevant parties, including initiator Mashudu Thenga, the sanctioning committee and representatives of the affected parties,” Mogale-Makinta said.
However, Hem’s promoter, Ayanda Matiti, said the ruling did not take into consideration that the Sibisi-Fule bout was never sanctioned, as supported by committee chair Irvin Buhlalu’s presentation.
“The arbitration erred in usurping the powers of the sanctioning committee by declaring Sibisi-Fule bout sanctioned when the committee chair was explicit in his presentation that the bout was never sanctioned.
“In our submission, we contended that policy 11.6 and regulation 17 are in harmony, as no right of any challenger was infringed upon. Fule’s challenge came after Hem and the committee sanctioned the Sibisi-Hem bout on February 10,” said Matiti.
However, the arbitrary panel’s ruling said Hem’s status as the champion should play second fiddle to regulations which paved the way for Fule’s mandatory position to get first preference.
With the discrepancy in the application of the relevant rule, the tribunal ordered BSA to ensure that all internal rules and policies were aligned with regulations. “BSA must also ensure that there is proper governance and decision-making processes within the sanctioning committee.”
Some of the BSA sub-committees had previously been flagged for lacking capacity, leading to adverse rulings. “BSA must take steps to capacitate the sanctioning committee to avoid recurrence of similar irregularities.”
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.