Portrait supplied by the author
On Tuesday 17 March 2026, the CAF Appeal Board issued a controversial ruling concerning the AFCON final between Senegal and Morocco (Match 52 of the tournament) a development un precedented in the African football
Two months ago, the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) was hosted in Morocco a country in North Africa, where 23 teams participated from the group stage and two teams to the final: the host nation Morocco and Senegal. everyone who watched that match witnessed an different and rare incident in the history of football.
The match was tense,with significant pressure on both teams Despite complaints about poor officiating, plays continued. Suddenly a dramatic moment occurred a penalty was awarded to the host country in the final minutes. The decision shocked players, officials and supporters alike. The Senegalese team protested and attempted to boycott the match. However they eventually returned to the pitch and continued the game. The match concluded with the penalty being played, and Senegal ultimately defeated Morocco in extra time. The AFCON trophy was officially handed to Senegal who celebrated their victory in same time.
Following the match, the host country filed a formal protest before the CAF Disciplinary Committee (Case DC23315),relying on Article 82 of the CAF Regulations, arguing that Senegal’s temporary walk-off constituted a refusal to play and therefore amounted to a forfeiture.
On 28–29 January 2026, the CAF Disciplinary Committee rejected Morocco request to overturn the match result, affirming Senegal as the 2025 AFCON champions. The Committee held that there were “insufficient grounds” to declare a forfeiture.
Morocco Dissatisfied amd futher appealed to the CAF Appeal Board, chaired by a Nigerian High Court judge. On Tuesday 17 March 2026, the Appeal Board ruled in Morocco’s favour, declaring them the winners. This decision has raised serious legal issues that only the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) can finally resolve.
However let legally analys the issues on.
Going by the provisions The IFAB Laws of the Game, Law 5(2)
Such Law 5(2) provides
“The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final. The decisions of the referee, and all other match officials, must always be respected.”
This provision clearly indicates that once the referee decided to resume the match and the match was completed to full time including extra time the temporary protest by Senegal cannot legally amount to abandonment. The referee authority is final regarding continuation and conclusion of the match.
And taking also Article 82 of the CAF Regulations into consideration
Article 82 states:
“If a team refuses to play or to continue the match… the team shall be declared loser and shall be eliminated from the competition.”
However Senegal refusal to continue was not final, as they returned to the pitch and completed the match. A temporary protest does not amount to a definitive refusal under Article 82. The match resumed, was completed, and the trophy was awarded. Therefore, applying Article 82 retroactively contradicts the facts on the ground.
Why the Appeal Board’s Reasoning Is Controversial
The CAF Appeal Board adopted a strict interpretation, holding that Article 82 is an “automatic trigger.” According to them, the moment Senegal walked off in protest of the VAR decision, they had already refused to play. The Board argued that allowing teams to return and then win after a protest sets a dangerous precedent, enabling tactical walk-offs to pressure referees.
While this concern has merit, it does not legally justify forfeiting a match that the referee allowed to continue to full completion.
Imminently yesterday's night has publicly announced their intention to appeal to CAS. To assess their chances, we must examine CAS jurisprudence on match abandonment and technical rule violations.
Relevant Precedent: CAS 2014/A/3850 (Serbia v Albania)
A drone carrying a nationalist flag triggered crowd violence. The referee suspended the match. Albania refused to return, citing safety threats. UEFA ruled that Albania forfeited the match and awarded Serbia a 3–0 win.
CAS overturned UEFA’s decision.
It held that while Albania did refuse to continue, the home team (Serbia) failed in its duty to ensure security, which made continuation impossible. CAS awarded Albania a 3–0 victory.
CAS may overlook a team’s refusal to continue where the surrounding circumstances make the refusal understandable or where strict application of the rule leads to injustice.
Application to Senegal v Morocco
The match was completed.
A trophy was awarded.
Senegal's walk-off was temporary.
There was no referee declaration of abandonment.
Proportionality doctrine strongly favours Senegal.
However Senegal still faces a challenge, their coach admitted the walk-off was a protest against a refereeing decision, which is expressly prohibited. This weakens their equitable argument.
Nonetheless, CAS rarely strips a completed match result unless the integrity of the competition was fundamentally compromised.
Current Position
At this stage, nothing more can be definitively added until CAS determines the matter. As legal principle famously articulated by Justice Chukwudifu Oputa in Josiah v. The State (1985), justice for the appellant, for the respondent, and most importantly, for the public.
An interesting element is that Senegal has already experienced the full joy of lifting the trophy a moment Morocco can never recover even if awarded the title.This makes the case unique in world football and may set a historic precedent.
I also noticed a post by Daily Nigerian editor, Jaafar Jaafar commenting humorously on sports betting payouts:
“CAF should also retrieve betting payouts from those who predicted Senegal win and give those who predicted Morocco win.”
Umar SG Kalambaina is my name.
Author’s views are published for discussion and do not necessarily represent the views of Innovative Bar. Readers should consult the primary legal materials and obtain professional advice where appropriate.
About the Author
