I am sending a reply in response to Stephen Calleja’s article entitled, “Sports journalists ‘too afraid’ of Joe Mifsud” (TMIS, 19 July).

The MFA’s board that investigates allegations of bribery in football has two functions: the first is to investigate any allegation referred to it by the MFA’s competent authorities. If the allegation is proved to be unfounded, the board archives the case. If it appears that an allegation may be substantiated, it decides to issue charges against individuals and/or clubs. In this case the board exercises its second function, which is that of adjudicating the matter after hearing the party charged.

This board is made up of professional neutral individuals. Its chairman is a lawyer, and its members are another two lawyers, an ex-Police Superintendent and an ex-general manager of a reputable company. The board is independent of the MFA Council, the Executive Committee, the MFA president and the other MFA officials, as is after all the case with the whole MFA disciplinary set-up.

The members of the board are obliged to judge according to their conscience and intelligence on valid evidence tendered both at the investigation stage and during the hearing. In order to establish guilt and then proceed to mete out the punishment, the board must be satisfied, at least on a balance of probabilities, that the party charged is guilty.

However, one must understand that the MFA board does not have the power to arrest individuals, as is the case with the executive police, or the power to order the arrest of an individual like the Civil Courts in case a person summoned does not turn up to give evidence or if he/she turns up but fails to give evidence. The only power the board has in such cases is to temporarily suspend such person from all football activities, if such person falls under the jurisdiction of the association, until the Control and Disciplinary Board of the association deals with such person.

In order to help the board carry out its duties properly in line with the rules and regulations of the association and in line with the principles of natural justice, even though the board only administers sporting justice, the MFA has done two things. It has joined as a civil party (parte civile) in each and every criminal case regarding corruption in football of which it had knowledge. This gives it the right not only to follow criminal proceedings as these develop, but also the right to obtain from the Court Registry official copies of the transcribed evidence tendered and of the documents exhibited in court.

Secondly, in view of the difficulties the board was encountering in some of the cases, in May of this year the MFA Council enacted new procedural rules empowering the board to consider as valid, statements made under oath, judicially or extra-judicially. In the case of the adjudication of an individual, the board has also been empowered to rely on any statement/s made by himself/herself, even not under oath, to the police provided that such statement/s is/are valid in accordance with the rules of the Maltese Criminal Code. These rules came into force on 1 June.

During the 2008/2009 football season, the board investigated a great number of alleged cases of corruption and has concluded several of them. It is still investigating a number of such allegations and has also issued charges regarding others.

In the cases the board is currently adjudicating, it is obliged to give those charged, whether an individual or club, the opportunity to bring forward their evidence and/or to make their submissions in their defence. This takes time even in the most efficient of Law Courts around the whole world!

Your reporter has based his article on two particular cases while ignoring the great number of cases the board has been asked to deal with. What is worse is that he wrote his article without even trying to verify the facts with the association, which has an efficient media department, but preferred to rely on “sources” which do not seem to be factually informed.

In both cases mentioned by your reporter, a club has also been charged in each case. The charge is not that the club as an entity had decided to get involved in corrupt acts and acted accordingly, but that a member of its management committee had involved himself in corrupt acts and had thus rendered his club responsible (a case of strict liability, which at law is the exception and not the rule). In order to find a club guilty of such a charge the board must have proof, at least on a balance of probabilities, that a management committee member was actually involved in a corrupt act. Furthermore, since it’s a case of strict liability, which might ruin a club, each and every case must not be adjudicated in a light manner.

In one of the cases mentioned by your reporter, a player, the only known witness besides the ex-committee member also charged who, in his statement to the police and during the hearing of evidence in the case instituted by the police against this club’s management committee member, stated that he was approached by this committee member to throw away a match, repeatedly refused to appear before the board to give evidence. Similarly, in the other case, a player, again the only known witness besides the ex-committee member also charged who alleged that he agreed with such a member of the management committee of the club to try and bribe players of the opposing team, although he appeared before the board, repeatedly refused to give evidence before the board.

It is hoped that the new procedural rules mentioned above and other procedural rules also enacted and which came into force on 1 June as well, will help the board to arrive at a just and fair conclusion in these two cases, which admittedly may be of consequence not only to the clubs charged but also to other clubs.

It must also be noted that the length of judicial or disciplinary proceedings does not necessarily mean procrastination. It is procrastination when one is in a position to decide and takes a long time to make a decision. Furthermore, the time-span of disciplinary proceedings in football in such cases is not something particular to Maltese football. With a little research, your reporter would find out that in a few other countries similar situations occurred and there were instances when such cases were decided years after bribery had taken place.

In order to confirm that your reporter understands nothing or very little about football rules, he stated that he had contacted UEFA but his queries remained unanswered. I wish to inform him that UEFA does not enter into domestic football problems. I also wish to inform him that UEFA itself is still investigating allegations of bribery regarding more than 20 UEFA matches, some of which were played more than two years ago. UEFA is also still, for example, investigating the corruption case regarding the UEFA Cup match Marsaxlokk FC v. Slaven Belupo played in July 2008. Finally, as regards your reporter’s allegation that “Sports journalists ‘too afraid’ of Joe Mifsud”, besides that, in my humble opinion, this heading of the article, also repeated in the article itself, is a grave insult to his colleagues working in the sports field, it goes further to show that your reporter writes about things without even trying to do a little research. As proof of this, I wish to inform your reporter that a journalist who during the last year has repeatedly published blatant lies against the MFA president (who is currently suing him for libel in the civil courts) and against other MFA members and employees, still had free access to the stadia.

I hope that next time, before putting pen to paper, your reporter will do some research and will check the facts with “reliable” not “dubious” sources.

Mark Muscat

Head of Communications

MFA

Stephen Calleja writes: The last part of the letter – signed by MFA’s communications officer, but certainly approved by president Joe Mifsud – is precisely the kind of intimidation that the MFA tries to exert on anyone who dares go beyond what the MFA says in its press statements, and tries to investigate matters that concern the association.

Accusations that I know nothing about football rules, that I did no research for my article and that I should check the facts are simply a way of trying to throw doubt on my professionalism. I can assure the MFA that I know how to do my job.

What was there to verify with the association? The story was to give the point of view of clubs that are involved in the allegations of corruption, and which cannot plan ahead because the investigations are taking too long.

The MFA calls the sources I quoted as “dubious”. What I can say is that they are reliable people who are afraid of the repercussions there could be against them personally and the clubs they represent if they criticise the MFA in public. I will, of course, not reveal their identity. Just as much that, as a lawyer, Dr Mifsud is bound by lawyer-client confidentiality, I am bound not to reveal my sources or give indications as to who they may be.

As to the journalist who has been taken to court by Dr Mifsud for “blatant lies”, it is up to the courts to decide whether these are lies or not. And, is the MFA expecting a round of applause for not withdrawing his press card? I do wonder why the MFA felt the need to specify this. It goes without saying that journalists’ views ought to be respected. That is what is normal in a democracy.

By the way, I do not have an MFA press card.

Incidentally, the tactic of taking journalists to court has been used other times by Dr Mifsud, like when he sued me for printing, as editor of The Malta Independent, an article written by a contributor in May 2005, and this in spite of carrying the MFA’s right of reply a few days later. We have been going to court for more than four years, and the issue is still to be decided.

The MFA said that I insulted my colleagues when I wrote that sports journalists are afraid of Dr Mifsud. I was not the one who said it; I was quoting the same reliable sources who have this opinion. There is a difference between a news story and a comment piece.

It is true that some football bribery cases take years to be concluded, but other more complicated ones have been sorted out in a much shorter time. For example, the 2006 scandal in Italy was decided within three months, and that involved 39 matches.

With regard to my queries to UEFA, the MFA does not need to teach me that UEFA does not have jurisdiction over Maltese domestic affairs. In my two e-mails to UEFA – which, I am sure, Dr Mifsud has enough power to ask a copy of – I specifically wrote that “While I understand that UEFA does not enter into issues concerning its member associations, I would like to ask general questions with regard to policy on corruption cases and how they should be dealt with.”