Something does not add up in Salim Jamal's summons

Jul 20, 2019

His crime? Standing up to defend his own name against being smeared by a honourable Member of Parliament

A sit down strike by Uganda Cranes, a plea from FUFA to no avail.

The players are unanimous in their decision not to continue duty until an overdue promise to give them, a handshake of $6,000 by FUFA is fulfilled.

Irked but not frustrated - a panicky FUFA resolves the impasse by delivering on their promise in record time; 48 hours.

Apart from a press statement that explained the federation position and reminded the team of the code of conduct that each player signed before the tournament kicked off, there were no repercussions.

Justified or not, it was the most glaring act of indiscipline by the Cranes under the current administration.

For embarrassing the federation and betraying the nation with their act of disloyalty, the opportunistic players should have provoked the wrath of their bosses.

Instead, they drew understanding and acceptance of culpability on the side of FUFA, which is why their money was paid instantly. End of story.

In the most dramatic turnaround, however, one particular player; goalkeeper Salim Jamal Magoola, wasn't so lucky.

His crime? Standing up to defend his own name against being smeared by an honourable Member of Parliament who had singled him out for blame among four others.

Using his Twitter handle - the same platform the honourable had used to attack him - Jamal took exception to the comments and returned the fire.

He didn't lash out at FUFA nor did he single out any individual within for comment. It was personal between him and the honourable.

Last week, it was shock as the FUFA disciplinary committee wrote to the Cranes goalkeeper; "You are therefore summoned to appear before the FUFA disciplinary panel in person with your written response on Monday, July 15, 2019, at 2 pm at FUFA House boardroom."

The response to accusations that Jamal's comments were improper, abusive, insulting and had brought the game of football into disrepute contrary to the FUFA rules and communications code.

The irony in Magoola's summoning was telling. How does Magoola's self-defence against an unprovoked and baseless attack from a one Ugandan in their personal capacity translate into putting the game in disrepute?

Short of treason, what is the closest term we can use to describe Cranes well-calculated strike?

From FUFA's swift response to cool down the strike incident, we can read that they ‘understood' where the players were coming from and so they were forgiven.

As it turned out, it is Magoola's animalistic instinct to fight for his name that FUFA can't understand.

The Cranes hurt the nation, Magoola was demanding for respect from an individual. Maybe it is, that footballers don't carry the same weight as politicians and so it is FUFA's responsibility to save the politician's face.

But then again, this same politician was in Egypt on his own accord to cheer Magoola and company.

He recognises their place in Uganda, their value as footballers and the importance of football to the nation's honour and pride.

Whatever verdict will come out of this, following the committee's first hearing on Monday is irrelevant to the issue in discussion now.

It is that double standards have been applied in interpreting the same rule from the code of conduct.

If a strike doesn't bring football into disrepute but a twitter message directed at an individual outside football does, then God save the FUFA disciplinary committee.

Magoola's comments were interpreted as ‘improper', ‘abusive' and ‘insulting.'

From where I sit, the Cranes act was indignant, mortifying, rabble-rousing, ungrateful and insulting to the multitudes at home who have given everything during this campaign to support them.

They broke into half; FUFA's code of conduct. The issue, however, was buried six feet under and everyone returned happily.

On his part, Magoola will now have to carry his own cross and pay the price for fighting for the honour of his name.

Maybe Magoola's reputation precedes him. I have never spoken to him. Even that, however, wouldn't warrantee an inverted application of the rule book.

Something doesn't add up.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});