The Tribunal arbitral du sport (TAS) is examining the dispute between Senegal, Morocco and the CAF in Lausanne on Thursday over the final of the CAN 2025, with details beginning to emerge about the arguments presented by each side.
The case centres on differing interpretations of the regulations, the referee’s authority and allegations of procedural irregularities. However, the reports coming from the closed hearing should be treated with caution, as they have not been officially confirmed.
According to information circulated on Thursday, including by journalist Malang Sane, Morocco’s legal team is understood to have reaffirmed its reliance on Articles 82 and 84 of the CAN regulations. Those provisions concern, among other matters, abandoning the field of play and the sanctions that may follow.
To explain why referee Jean-Jacques Ndala did not permanently stop the match after the Senegal players withdrew, the Moroccan representatives are also reported to have put forward another argument. They allegedly claimed the referee had been influenced by his compatriot Olivier Safari, the president of the CAF referees’ commission.
Images said to show Safari giving instructions to Ndala were reportedly raised during the proceedings. At this stage, however, that remains an argument attributed to sources outside the hearing rather than an established fact.
Senegal challenge referee and appeal process
The Senegalese defence is understood to have focused on the authority of the referee’s decisions, citing Law 5 of the IFAB and Article 9 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code.
Its central argument is that the match resumed and was played through to its conclusion under the authority of the refereeing team. Senegal is also reported to have challenged the validity of the process that led to the CAF appeal jury’s decision.
The Senegalese side has further raised suspicions of corruption, although those allegations have not been publicly confirmed.
Another disputed issue is whether a second report written by the referee exists and, if so, what significance it carries.
Malang Sane, citing a source who attended the hearing, reported that the possibility of such a report was dismissed after three hours of argument. That account was qualified by the account youssef amz13, which said the document had simply not been discussed during the hearing.
The distinction is significant: an item being rejected after examination does not necessarily mean it was never considered.
More broadly, the information emerging from the proceedings remains incomplete and potentially contradictory. Because the hearing is being held behind closed doors, accounts may reflect the interests or perspectives of the sources providing them.
One point is certain: the TAS will not deliver its verdict on Thursday, 8 October. The arbitrators must first deliberate before ruling on the sensitive case, and no date for the decision has yet been announced.
Louis Mukoma Fargues
