Al-Hilal Omdurman threaten CAS action over RS Berkane El Moussaoui case

Sudanese club Al-Hilal Omdurman have warned they could take their dispute with the Confederation of African Football (CAF) to the Court of Arbitration for Sport over the El Moussaoui case involving RS Berkane.

In a statement released on Friday, April 3, 2026, Al-Hilal confirmed that the 48-hour deadline they had given CAF to respond to their correspondence had expired, intensifying a dispute that has drawn growing attention across African football.

The club said the latest development follows a sequence of formal steps initiated on March 23, including an official complaint, a request to be recognised as an interested party, and multiple follow-up letters.

A final reminder was sent on March 30, yet Al-Hilal claim there has been no response from CAF.

The Sudanese side expressed frustration at what they described as a prolonged silence, stating that the governing body had failed to reply for 11 days despite receiving four separate communications regarding the matter.

At the centre of the dispute is Moroccan club RS Berkane and the eligibility of player Hamza El Moussaoui during their CAF Champions League tie.

Al-Hilal are challenging his participation, citing a doping test that reportedly detected a prohibited substance listed by the World Anti-Doping Agency.

According to the club, the agency did not request analysis of the B sample, thereby confirming the findings of the A sample under the relevant regulations.

Al-Hilal have called for immediate precautionary measures, including the suspension of RS Berkane from all CAF and FIFA competitions until the issue is fully examined. The request underscores the seriousness with which the Sudanese club is pursuing the case.

With no response forthcoming, Al-Hilal have issued a final ultimatum, setting April 3 as the deadline for CAF to provide a detailed reply.

The club has made clear that failure to act will result in the matter being referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

According to the statement, the case is supported by more than 13 pieces of evidence, suggesting the possibility of a significant legal dispute if the situation remains unresolved.