Why African Federations Need Independent Dispute Tribunals

In most African sporting federations, the body that regulates a sport is also, in effect, the body that judges disputes arising from it. A federation writes its own rules, disciplines its own members, and hears appeals against its own decisions. That arrangement is common, long-standing, and increasingly difficult to defend.

The conflict is structural rather than personal. Even a scrupulously fair federation official is being asked to judge a case in which their own institution has an interest — in the outcome of a selection dispute, a disciplinary matter, or a contractual disagreement. Athletes and clubs are right to ask whether that is a fair hearing, and international sports governance has moved decisively toward separating the two functions, most visibly through the Court of Arbitration for Sport at the international level.

Uganda's National Sports Act, 2023 gives this question new urgency at home. The Act creates a statutory framework for sports administration and discipline, which is precisely the moment at which the relationship between government regulators, federations and independent dispute-resolution bodies has to be decided — not left to custom. Get the institutional design right now, while implementing regulations and structures are still being built, and it is far cheaper than correcting it later.

This is a live research question for ASLPC's Sports Policy and Governance division: how should Uganda, and comparable African jurisdictions working through similar reforms, structure that relationship in practice? What follows in our research agenda is not a call for more litigation, but for a cleaner separation — regulatory administration on one side, independent adjudication on the other — so that federations can focus on developing sport, and disputes can be resolved by bodies with no stake in the outcome.