Swimming SA to Amend Controversial Clauses Following Legal Challenge

Swimming South Africa (SSA) finds itself at the center of a legal storm, with crucial aspects of its governing constitution under intense scrutiny. During a recent court proceeding at the Johannesburg High Court, the federation conceded that its rules forbidding members from initiating legal proceedings against it contained significant errors and contradictions that warranted urgent amendments.

The controversy involves clauses 14.3 and 19.2 of SSA’s constitution, which, while appearing to serve similar objectives, paradoxically conflict with each other. Clause 14.3 prohibits members from taking legal action without first engaging SSA’s internal dispute resolution process, threatening immediate membership suspension. On the other hand, Clause 19.2 harshly states that members resorting to legal disputes "will automatically cease to be a member."

This contradiction was spotlighted through an urgent application brought forward by a parent of a child swimmer, aiming to secure their child’s place on a national team for an upcoming world championship, despite SSA’s claims that the child did not meet the qualification criteria. This legal challenge, initially deemed non-urgent and thus struck from the court roll, opened a broader debate on the appropriateness and legality of the contentious constitutional articles.

SSA CEO Shaun Adriaanse acknowledged these inconsistencies in a court affidavit, admitting that the clause 19.2 was an "erroneous" relic that had not been operational. Adriaanse outlined a forthcoming comprehensive review of SSA’s constitution, with amendments prepared to rectify these provisions, aiming for a more clear, fair, and enforceable set of organizational rules. According to Adriaanse, these proposed changes are set to undergo executive committee scrutiny early next year and, if approved, will be ratified during a special general meeting.

This initiative signals a potential shift towards more transparent governance and dispute resolution within SSA, reflecting a broader attempt to align the federation’s constitutional framework with standard legal practices, thereby reinforcing the rights and fair treatment of its members.

The legal quandary emerged from a November application by the parent, who, aside from fighting for their child’s inclusion on national grounds, contested the legitimacy and application of the SSA’s punitive clauses. The federation had decided to include the child in the team as part of a broader policy to expose more athletes to international competitions, even those who did not meet traditional qualifying standards.

Legal representatives for the parent argued that their client should not be suspended from SSA for taking legitimate action to protect their child's interests, emphasizing the need for rules that do not unjustly penalize members seeking justice.

The case against SSA raises crucial questions about the balance between organizational control and individual rights within sports administrations, highlighting a scenario where legal oversight could foster more meaningful and participatory governance in South African sports federations.

This ongoing legal battle and SSA’s response may serve as a significant precedent for other sports bodies in the country, potentially leading to more judicious and member-friendly governance practices.