Lironthung files appeal against Mizoram Football Association lifetime ban

A formal appeal petition has been filed before the Executive Committee of the Mizoram Football Association and the Secretary of Mizoram Football Association (MFA) on behalf of professional football player Lironthung Lotha, challenging the lifetime ban imposed on him by the MFA. The petition was submitted by his legal representatives—Deep Ray, Tarsh Khanna, and Pranjal Shah—in accordance with Article 117 of the AIFF Disciplinary Code, 2024.

The petition outlined the series of events that led to the suspension and highlighted several procedural irregularities surrounding the decision. “The sequence of events described below is a true version of the factual circumstances around the lifetime ban imposed on the Appellant,” the petition stated.

Lotha, who was playing for FC Bethlehem, a club affiliated with the MFA, was notified by the MFA on October 29, 2024, regarding charges of violating the AIFF Disciplinary Code. The MFA requested Lotha to physically attend a hearing on October 31, 2024, but did not specify the nature of the charges or provide evidence. “The Letter for Hearing did not provide the specifics of the charge against the Appellant and the evidence thereof,” the petition added.

Despite Lotha informing the MFA on October 30, 2024, that he could not attend the hearing, it alleged that the MFA proceeded without acknowledging his letter. The hearing continued in Lotha’s absence, preventing him from defending himself adequately.

On November 4, 2024, the MFA issued a statement banning Lotha along with several others for alleged corruption, specifically match manipulation. The statement was vague, providing only a summary of the decision and no reasoning behind the sanction. Lotha’s legal team requested the grounds for the decision through an Intention to Appeal dated November 7, 2024, but the MFA failed to respond or provide the requested information.

Lotha’s legal team contends that “the lifetime ban sanctioned against the Appellant is ill-founded, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.” They argued that the MFA failed to provide any evidence to support the charges of corruption or match manipulation, which should be essential for such a serious sanction. The petition points out, “The Letter for Hearing did not provide or allude to any evidence relied on by the MFA Disciplinary Committee to impose the charge of corruption and match manipulation upon the Appellant.”

The appeal also highlighted that “unsatisfactory performance” cannot be grounds for corruption or match manipulation. The MFA’s letter vaguely referred to Lotha’s performance as “unsatisfactory,” but it did not specify incidents or context. The appeal draws on a similar case, stating: “In the case of Igor Labuts v. Football Association of Ireland (FAI), the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) set aside the sanction imposed on a player, stating that while the player displayed indiscretion, the panel was not comfortably satisfied that the player participated in match manipulation.”

Lotha’s legal representatives also stressed the violation of his right to be heard. The AIFF Disciplinary Code ensures that a party has the right to be heard before any decision is passed. The appeal asserted, “Article 90 of the AIFF DC provides, ‘A party shall be given the opportunity to be heard before any decision is passed.’” However, Lotha was denied this right, as the MFA failed to provide specific charges or the evidence against him, ultimately preventing him from adequately defending himself.

Lotha’s appeal argued that the MFA’s handling of the case was not only procedurally flawed but also unjust. The petition highlighted a lack of clarity in the charges, the failure to provide evidence, and the breach of the player’s right to defend himself. The appeal sought to have the lifetime ban overturned based on these significant procedural irregularities.

MT