Challenges his ousters to follow processes
The on-going saga between the Botswana Football League (BFL) chairman, Nicholas Zakhem, and the BFL shareholders continues to escalate, as the two sides disagree on the validity of the chairman's position.
The latest development was a closed meeting held in Palapye over the weekend, where the shareholders voted to remove Zakhem as chairman and replace him with Godfrey Ratlhaga. Zakhem, however, maintains that the decision was not taken in accordance with the BFL constitution, and he remains the chairman of the BFL.
In an interview this week, Zakhem stated that he had not received official notification of the outcome of the meeting in Palapye, and that he believed the decisions made there were not in accordance with the BFL constitution.
He emphasized that as far as he was concerned, he was still the BFL chairman, and he and his team were preparing to provide an update on the situation.
“The BFL constitution is clear on this matter, and I am guided by its principles. We have sought legal guidance on this issue, and the events that happened in Palapye were not in accordance with the constitution,” he said.
“Even if a landlord owns a house, they cannot evict the tenants whenever they choose, just because the house belongs to them, there is a process that must be followed. Similarly, there is a process that must be followed in this situation, and I am not prepared to step down until that process is completed,” Zakhem added.
According to Zakhem, the BFL constitution states that the interim board of directors remains in office until the end of the 2023/2024 season, which means he will continue to serve as chairman until then. He went on to state that he was carrying on with his life as usual, and that if the shareholders wanted to make any changes, they would need to follow the procedures outlined in the constitution. He also suggested that the shareholders' actions were driven by different motives, rather than by the constitution itself.
Ratlhaga acknowledged the BFL's constitution, but argued that as the newly-elected chairman, he is now in charge with the BFL Board. He stated that all parties involved, including the BFL, were aware of what had happened in
Palapye, and that the shareholders had chosen him to take the lead. He cited Article 32 of the BFL constitution as justification for the events in Palapye, which he said were in accordance with the rules.
The latest development was a closed meeting held in Palapye over the weekend, where the shareholders voted to remove Zakhem as chairman and replace him with Godfrey Ratlhaga. Zakhem, however, maintains that the decision was not taken in accordance with the BFL constitution, and he remains the chairman of the BFL.
In an interview this week, Zakhem stated that he had not received official notification of the outcome of the meeting in Palapye, and that he believed the decisions made there were not in accordance with the BFL constitution.
He emphasized that as far as he was concerned, he was still the BFL chairman, and he and his team were preparing to provide an update on the situation.
“The BFL constitution is clear on this matter, and I am guided by its principles. We have sought legal guidance on this issue, and the events that happened in Palapye were not in accordance with the constitution,” he said.
“Even if a landlord owns a house, they cannot evict the tenants whenever they choose, just because the house belongs to them, there is a process that must be followed. Similarly, there is a process that must be followed in this situation, and I am not prepared to step down until that process is completed,” Zakhem added.
According to Zakhem, the BFL constitution states that the interim board of directors remains in office until the end of the 2023/2024 season, which means he will continue to serve as chairman until then. He went on to state that he was carrying on with his life as usual, and that if the shareholders wanted to make any changes, they would need to follow the procedures outlined in the constitution. He also suggested that the shareholders' actions were driven by different motives, rather than by the constitution itself.
Ratlhaga acknowledged the BFL's constitution, but argued that as the newly-elected chairman, he is now in charge with the BFL Board. He stated that all parties involved, including the BFL, were aware of what had happened in
Palapye, and that the shareholders had chosen him to take the lead. He cited Article 32 of the BFL constitution as justification for the events in Palapye, which he said were in accordance with the rules.
