Dare I say it… Nothing – except for a natural disaster of epic proportions – can prevent Bennett Bailey from taking up an unprecedented third term as president of Safa Cape Town… Unless there is an intervention by the courts.
Langa’s legal team is now set to challenge the rejection of both nominations – one by Langa and a second one by Metropolitan.
This follows after the region’s Electoral Appeal Committee convened last week to hear an appeal submitted by Langa’s legal team but was actually shot down to declare the previous process null-and-void.
The appeal challenged the rejection of Gum’s nomination by the Metropolitan Local Football Association (LFA). The appellant contended that the nomination was duly signed. Also, that the signature of the Secretary General (reflected as “L. Fredericks”), who was present at the hearing, constituted a valid electronic signature.
The Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 permits electronic signatures where they can identify the signatory.
The matter was heard separately but followed proceedings involving Langa-Ndabeni LFA due to shared legal representation. The appellant maintained that the initials and surname of the Secretary General constituted a valid electronic signature.
It was argued that the presence of such a signature satisfied legal requirements under the Act. During questioning, the appellant allegedly acknowledged uncertainty regarding compliance with Section 1 3 of the Act and conceded that an initial and a surname are not necessarily unique identifiers.
Furthermore, they could allegedly not clearly demonstrate how the nomination form constituted an electronic transaction” as contemplated in the Act and maintained that the existence of any signature should be sufficient, despite statutory requirements specifying the identity of signatories.
Some of the controversial findings from the committee, which is now subject to a court challenge, determined that: Non-Compliance with Electronic Signature Requirements.
The signature presented did not meet the requirements of Section 1 3 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act, as it:
• Was not uniquely linked to the signatory,
• Could not reliably identify the signatory,
• Was not created under the sole control of the signatory,
• Was not securely linked to the document.
• Failure to Meet SAFA Statutory Requirements:
Article 25.8. I of the SAFA Statute requires signatures from both the President and Secretary of the nominating LFA.
The provision is explicit regarding the identity of the signatories, not merely the presence of a signature.
• Lack of Proof of Authenticity: Ironically the Secretary General, Latasha Fredericks was present at the hearing, but it appears that she was invisible to the committee.
The appellant allegedly failed to establish that the signature in question belonged to the Secretary General of the Metropolitan LFA.
In essence, the Committee found that the nomination did not comply with applicable statutory and legal requirements and the outcome was that the appeal was dismissed and Gum’s nomination was upheld.
However, what is rather striking and questionable, is the fact that nothing was said about the rejection of Langa’s nomination who followed due processes of their nomination with the necessary signatures which is rather odd.
No Bones with Jones understands that the Langa LFA has now given their legal representatives a mandate to take it to Court and they are in the process of finalising the necessary paperwork.
