Norman Mapeza wins Zifa Asiagate case

By Daniel Nemukuyu

An arbitrator has ruled that the indefinite suspension of former Warriors’ head coach, Norman Mapeza, on allegations of match-fixing and illegal betting was unlawful and ordered Zifa to pay him salaries and benefits from February this year to April 2014.

Arbitrator, Caleb Mucheche, said Mapeza’s suspension, effected before Zifa had carried out proper investigations, was a mockery of an exercise and the association had “treaded a legal minefield with reckless abandon.”

He said Zifa subjected Mapeza to treatment that could only be expected in hell and the association’s actions, or lack of it, after the coach’s suspension gave credibility to the adage that justice delayed was justice denied.

Mucheche said Zifa “flagrantly, wantonly and brazenly violated (Mapeza’s) labour rights with impunity” and left the coach vulnerable to be “tried, convicted and sentenced by the media without an opportunity to be heard in sync with the fundamental tenets of natural justice embedded in the audi alteram paterm rule.”

Mapeza’s battle for redemption, said Mucheche, resembled the “deep agony of a victim of naked injustice at the hands of spineless, heartless and cruel taskmaster . . .”

Mucheche ordered Zifa to pay Mapeza US$94 071 for the period stretching from February to October this year and a further US$5 000 a month from this month to April 2014, which could bring his total earnings, minus allowances and bonuses, to about US$174 071.

The arbitrator ruled that Zifa should pay Mapeza using the monthly salary rate of US$5 000. The parties have to agree on the payment of the remaining salaries and benefits within 14 days. Mucheche said it was important for Zifa to be reminded that “the means does not justify the end and mighty is not right.”

Zifa dismissed Mapeza on February 8 this year after being fingered in the match-fixing and betting report compiled by a Zifa committee led by its deputy president, Ndumiso Gumede, who signed Mapeza’s letter of suspension.

Mucheche found that Zifa had unlawfully dismissed Mapeza and that he should also be paid all his salaries and benefits for the unexpired period of his contract of employment including all accrued leave days.

“The respondent (Zifa) is hereby ordered to pay the claimant (Norman Mapeza) the net sum of US$94 071 as his arrear salaries and benefits for the period from February 2012 to October 2012.

“Consequent to my finding that the claimant was constructively dismissed by the respondent, the latter is hereby ordered to pay the former all his salaries and benefits for the unexpired period of his contract of employment including all accrued leave days.

“The respondent shall reimburse the claimant all his total legal costs for this entire dispute.

“The amounts to be paid in terms of paragraph two and three above, shall be agreed between the parties and be paid by the respondent to the claimant within 14 working days with effect from the date of receipt of this arbitral award, failure of which either party can revert to the arbitrator for quantification of same,” read the award.

Mapeza was suspended in February and no disciplinary hearing was conducted. Rahman Gumbo was then announced as the new head coach. Mucheche said Zifa failed to bring Mapeza before a disciplinary hearing before the expiry of 14 days as required by law.

“His rights as an employee enshrined in his contract of employment, the Labour Act and regulations made there-under were trampled upon by the Respondent.

“From 8 February, 2012 to date, the claimant’s suspension continued for a period ad finitum and yet SI 15 of 2006, which the Respondent sought to rely on, clearly provides that with effect from the date of suspension, the disciplinary proceedings must be finalised within fourteen (14) working days.

“The respondent attempted to shield itself from the effects of its violations of the labour laws of the land by alleging that it is waiting for the report of Justice Ebrahim-led Ad Hoc committee.

“That defence is a lame and lifeless excuse because the claimant (Mapeza) is not employed by the Justice Ebrahim Ad Hoc Committee but by Zifa. The respondent as the employer must clean up its mess because it is the one that bungled by failing to handle the claimant’s case in a professional manner.

“To add salt to injury, the respondent relegated the claimant to oblivion and unilaterally imposed Rahman Gumbo into the position of head coach barely a day after discarding him. Zifa cannot have head coaches for the same senior men national soccer team.

“By employing Rahman Gumbo when the claimant’s contract of employment was still legally valid, Zifa repudiated or short-circuited the latter’s contract of employment,” read the arbitral award.

The mere allegation that Mapeza had been fingered in the match-fixing scandal, Mr Mucheche said, was not enough to warrant Mapeza’s dismissal without any hearing. “Even assuming that the claimant had been fingered in match-fixing and betting scandal, those were merely allegations which had not been proven.

“An accused is innocent until proven guilty. If the respondent (Zifa) was fully convinced that the claimant had a case to answer, it should have arraigned him before a disciplinary panel for him to answer to those charges rather than leaving everything to its own whim and caprice . . .”

“By suspending the claimant from employment on February 8 2012 on the basis of the so-called allegation of match-fixing and betting without carrying out diligent and proper investigations, the respondent literally treaded a legal minefield with reckless abandon.

“The respondent flagrantly, wantonly and brazenly violated the claimant’s labour rights with impunity.

“The treatment of the claimant at the hands of respondent (Zifa) from February 8 2012 up to the date he resorted to legal recourse resembles deep agony of a victim of naked injustice at the hands of spineless, heartless and cruel taskmaster . . .”

Mapeza was further lambasted and lampooned by Zifa and the media.

He said Mapeza was tried, convicted and sentenced in the media without being afforded an opportunity to be heard. In his letter dated 10 February 2012, the claimant complained about how he had learnt of his suspension from employment through the press and yet he has a valid contract of employment with respondent.

“The claimant was lambasted and lampooned by the respondent and its misguided media agents. He was tried, convicted and sentenced by the media without being afford an opportunity to be heard . . .”

Mucheche said Mapeza was forced to dig deeper into his pockets to seek legal counsel “because of the respondent’s intransigence and vindictive mood.

“From the facts of this case, I am compelled to order the respondent to reimburse the claimant his total legal costs to achieve social justice, which is the chief purpose of the Labour Act.” The Herald