Connect with us

Featured

Match Fixing: Siaisa Insist He Is Innocent

Published

on

Match Fixing: Siaisa Insist He Is Innocent

Joel Ajayi

As the March 19, 2020 date for former Super Eagles’ Chief Coach Samson Siasia’s Appeal at Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) approaches, the former International insisted that he did not collect any bribe to fix any match and that he only negotiated negotiated terms after being headhunted by someone who approached him for a coaching job.

He never knew and could not have known the man was involved or convicted for match-fixing. He has not seen or heard from the man since the cancelled negotiations back in April 2010 until he read about his  life ban by FIFA in the media last August.

Siasia was banned for life by world football governing body FIFA in August 2019 August 2019 on the accusation that he agreed to receive bribes and for match fixing.

“In its decision, the adjudicatory chamber found that Mr Siasia had breached art. 11 (Bribery) of the 2009 edition of the FIFA Code of Ethics and banned him for life from all football-related activities (administrative, sports or any other) at both national and international level,” part of the FIFA statement read.

FIFA say the proceedings against Siasia stemmed from an ‘extensive investigation into matches that’ a certain Wilson Raj Perumal attempted to manipulate for betting purposes.

Although the specific game was not mentioned by FIFA, Perumal, a confessed match-fixer from Singapore had claimed in his book that he helped Nigeria to qualify for the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

“It is clear that Fifa relied only on some emails about 10 years ago when I was approached for a possible coaching job and not for match fixing or bribery as FIFA claimed they banned me for life for.

“It is clear that I was falsely accused of match fixing. Despite not fixing any match and despite not receiving any money FIFA insisted on banning me for life just for being approached to take up a coaching job”, Siasia disclosed to SPORTINGLIFE yesterday.

The former Super Eagles Coach claimed he was negotiating for a coaching job with someone who contacted him for the job. It so happened that this man had been convicted for match fixing. But Siasia didn’t know that the man was convicted for match fixing.

FIFA assumed that Siasia knew him and was discussing match fixing. The former Eagles’ Coach however was only discussing the terms for the job according to him.

The lawyers representing Siasia are now seeking justice in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and their prayers are: To lift the ban, quash the fine and reinstate the Appellant’s Status in football and his costs ameliorated.

The embattled Coach has thanked some concerned Nigerians who stood up to help him so far and those who have been encouraging him not to lose hope in his fight to clear his name in the bribery and match the fixing allegations. He also solicited for financial support to be able to attend the appeal.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Business

Tax Reform Bills: The Verdict of Nigerians

Published

on

Ismaila Ahmad Abdullahi Ph.D

The public hearings conducted recently by the two Chambers of the National Assembly have elicited positive responses from a broad spectrum of Nigerians, cutting across regional interest groups, government agencies, civil society groups, concerned individuals, the academia, and Labour Unions, among diverse others. Contrary to a few dissensions hitherto expressed in the media, almost all the stakeholders who spoke during the week-long sessions were unanimous in their declaration that the hallowed Chambers should pass the tax reform bills after a clean-up of the grey areas.

The public hearings were auspicious for all Nigerians desirous of economic growth and fiscal responsibility. They were also a watershed moment for the Federal Inland Revenue Service, which had been upbeat about the tax reforms. Indeed, the public hearings had rekindled hope in the tenets of democracy that guarantee freedom of expression and equitable space for cross-fertilisation of ideas. Without gainsaying the fact, the tax reform bills have been unarguably about the most thought-provoking issues in Nigeria today, drawing variegated perspectives and commentaries from even unlikely quarters such as the faith-based leaders, student bodies, and trade unions, which speaks much about the importance of the bills.

In the build-up to the public hearings, not many people believed that the bills would make it to the second reading, much less the public hearings. Even the Northern stakeholders who seemed unlikely to support the passage of the bills have softened their stance and have given valuable suggestions that would enrich the substance of the bills. The Arewa Consultative Forum came to the public hearings well-prepared with a printed booklet that addressed their concerns. It concluded with an advisory that the bills should be “Well planned, properly communicated, strategically implemented and ample dialogue and political consensus allowed for the reforms to be accepted.”

The concerns of ACF ranged from the composition of the proposed Nigeria Revenue Service Board as contained in Part 111, Section 7 of the bill, the unlimited Presidential power to exempt/wave tax payment as proposed in Section 75(1) of the bill, the family income or inheritance tax as contained in Part 1, Section 4(3) of the bill, to the issues around development levy and VAT. On the development levy, the ACF stated that unless the Federal Government is considering budgetary funding for TETFUND, NASENI and NITDA, it does not see the “wisdom behind the plan to replace (them) with NELFUND”.

The position of the North was equally reinforced by the Supreme Council for Shariah in Nigeria, Northern Elders Forum, Kano State Government, Professor Auwalu Yadudu, and the FCT Imams. Like the ACF, these stakeholders lent their respective voices to the Section on the Inheritance Tax in Part 1 of the bill and the use of the term ‘ecclesiastical’, which, in their views, undermines certain religious rights and beliefs. The Kano State Government, represented by Mahmud Sagagi, affirmed that “we support tax modernisation” but cautioned that “we must ensure that this process does not come at the expense of states’ constitutional rights and economic stability”. Professor Auwalu Yadudu, a constitutional law professor, drew attention to the use of the ‘supremacy clause’ and cautioned that the repeated use of “notwithstanding” in the bills would undermine the supremacy of the Nigerian constitution if passed as such.

Other stakeholders that made contributions at the sessions included the Nigeria Liquefied Natural Gas, Fiscal Responsibility Commission, Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission, Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment, Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria, Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria, Nigeria Customs Service, and a host of others. While most of their concerns bordered on technical issues requiring fine-tuning, they were unanimous in their support for the bills. They aligned with the position of the Executive Chairman of the Federal Inland Revenue Service, Zacch Adedeji, Ph.D. and the Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms, Mr Taiwo Oyedele, which is that the extant tax laws and fiscal regulations are obsolete necessitating reforms aimed at creating a fair and equitable tax and fiscal space to grow Nigeria’s economy.

In one of the sessions, Dr Zaach Adedeji expounded on the criss-cross of trade activities in the Free Trade Zone whereby companies misuse tax waivers as exporters to sell their goods or services in the Customs Area at an amount usually less than the price the operators in the Customs Area who pay VAT and other taxes sell theirs thereby disrupting business transactions. This way, the operators in the Free Trade Zone shortchange the government in paying their due taxes by circumventing extant regulations, which are inimical to the economy’s growth.

Overall, the presentations were forthright, foresighted, and helpful in elucidating the issues contained in the bills. According to the statistics read out at the end of the hearings at the Senate, 75 stakeholders were invited, 65 made submissions, and 61 made presentations. At the House of Representatives 53 stakeholders made presentations. By all means, this is a fair representation. Given the presentations, it is evident that the National Assembly has gathered enough materials to guide its deliberations on the bills. As we look forward to the passage of the bills, we commend the leadership of the National Assembly for their unwavering commitment to making the bills see the light of the day.

Abdullahi is the Director of the Communications and Liaison Department, FIRS.

Continue Reading

Trending

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)