Vice-president of CAF appeals body raises alarm over AFCON ruling

The awarding process surrounding the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations has come under renewed scrutiny after Faustino Varela Monteiro publicly criticised aspects of the decision-making procedure.

Speaking in comments reported by L’Observateur, the vice-president of the Confederation of African Football Appeals Board expressed strong disagreement with the governing body’s position, warning that it risks undermining established principles within football governance.

His remarks add to growing tension around the handling of matters linked to the tournament awarded to Morocco.

Monteiro’s criticism centres on what he describes as a fundamental procedural flaw. He argued that revisiting facts established during matches represents a significant departure from accepted rules, particularly those governing officiating authority.

“I strongly disagree with the decision. The facts described in the match officials’ reports are presumed to be true and accurate until proven otherwise. If discrepancies arise, the referee’s report takes precedence on the field.”

By highlighting the primacy of officiating reports, Monteiro underscored what he sees as a core principle of football regulation.

According to his interpretation, any attempt to override these reports could weaken the institutional framework that governs the sport.

He further warned that such a decision might not withstand scrutiny beyond the continent’s football structures.

Referring to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Monteiro suggested that the case could prove vulnerable if challenged at an international level.

“The CAS will not review a decision made on the ground unless there is evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith, even if the decision appears erroneous in retrospect.”

His intervention raises questions about the stability of the ruling and its potential implications for CAF’s credibility.

While the governing body has maintained its stance, the public dissent from within its own appeals structure highlights divisions over how such cases should be handled.

As the situation develops, attention is likely to remain focused on whether the decision will face further legal examination and how CAF will respond to internal criticism at a time of heightened scrutiny.