CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11613 — Aminata Bangura v. Sierra Leone Football Association (SLFA)

"Bangura" · CAS dismissed appeal by SLFA presidential candidate disqualified for using a falsified police clearance certificate and failing integrity checks.

What happened in Bangura

Aminata Bangura, General Manager of SLIFA Football Club, sought to stand as President of the Sierra Leone Football Association (SLFA) at its 2 August 2025 Elective Congress. She submitted a police clearance certificate dated 10 June 2025. Following a petition from the Bo District FA alleging irregularities, the SLFA Ethics Board investigated and received confirmation from the Sierra Leone Police (CID) that Bangura had not personally attended the Fingerprint Bureau and that the certificate had been issued on a false declaration by a proxy. The certificate was rescinded. On 19 July 2025, the SLFA Ethics Board declared her ineligible, fined her NLe 5,000 and imposed a one-year ban from football-related activities for breaching Articles 15 (falsification) and 20 (duty of honesty) of the SLFA Code of Ethics. Bangura appealed to CAS, which granted provisional measures allowing her to stand on 31 July 2025; she stood but was not elected. After a full de novo hearing on 21 January 2026, Sole Arbitrator Hovell dismissed the appeal and confirmed the SLFA Ethics Board Decision. The case matters because it affirms that integrity checks for football officials extend beyond criminal records to encompass truthfulness and cooperation with ethics bodies, and that using a falsified document — even without personally forging it — constitutes a standalone violation.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11613

On 5 June 2025, the SLFA Electoral Committee announced elections for 2 August 2025. Bangura applied on 12 June 2025 and was provisionally declared eligible on 19 June 2025, subject to integrity checks. Following a petition from the Bo District FA, the SLFA Ethics Board investigated her police clearance certificate. On 9 July 2025, the Sierra Leone Police (CID) rescinded the certificate, stating Bangura had not personally attended the Fingerprint Bureau. After a hearing on 12 July 2025, the SLFA Ethics Board voted on 13 July 2025 to disqualify her. On 19 July 2025, it formally notified her of the decision: ineligibility, a fine of NLe 5,000, and a one-year ban. On 21 July 2025, Bangura sought interim relief from the High Court of Sierra Leone, which was dismissed on 29 July 2025. On 24 July 2025, she filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS. On 31 July 2025, the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division President granted provisional measures, allowing her to stand. She stood on 2 August 2025 but was not elected. The CAS panel was constituted on 20 October 2025, and a virtual hearing was held on 21 January 2026.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11613

• A candidate who submits a police clearance certificate obtained without completing the required two-stage fingerprint process uses a 'falsified' document within the meaning of Article 15.1 of the SLFA Code of Ethics, even if she did not personally forge it.
• The SLFA Ethics Board's integrity check mandate under Annex A of the SLFA Constitution extends beyond verifying criminal records and sporting sanctions to encompass a candidate's truthfulness, cooperation, and compliance with the SLFA Code of Ethics.
• A candidate who fails to cooperate fully and truthfully with the SLFA Ethics Board during an integrity check breaches Article 20 of the SLFA Code of Ethics and is deemed not to have passed the integrity check under Annex A, Part 1, paragraph 3.
• A fine of NLe 5,000 and a one-year ban from football-related activities for a breach of Article 15.1 of the SLFA Code of Ethics are not 'grossly and evidently disproportionate' where the fine is at the lower end and the ban at the mid-point of the ranges prescribed by Article 15.2.
• Article R65.2 of the CAS Code (exemption from advance of costs) does not apply where the challenged disciplinary decision was issued by a national federation rather than an international federation or sports body.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator conducted a full de novo review. On the falsification issue, he accepted the detailed testimony of Mr Brima Turay, former Head of the CID Fingerprint Bureau, that a genuine certificate required both a manual ink-pad fingerprint in Room 22 and an electronic fingerprint in Room 23 of the CID headquarters. Since Bangura never completed the electronic step — on any version of her account — a false declaration was made to the Head of the CID, who signed the certificate without knowing the process was incomplete. When the truth emerged, he rescinded it. The Arbitrator therefore found the certificate 'falsified' in its ordinary meaning. On the integrity/honesty issue, the Arbitrator found Bangura's account of 9–10 June 2025 changed materially across her affidavit (22 July 2025), her Appeal Brief (24 July 2025), and her oral testimony at the CAS hearing, with her driver's evidence also contradicting hers on key points. He rejected the Respondent's argument that the minutes of the 12 July 2025 hearing recorded specific dishonest answers, noting the minutes were ambiguous and approved by Mr Sheriff without the detail he later relied upon. Nevertheless, the cumulative inconsistencies and the failure to disclose the 'car version' of events at the Ethics Board hearing led the Arbitrator to be 'comfortably satisfied' she had breached Article 20. He declined to disturb the sanctions as not grossly disproportionate.

Why Bangura matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies that integrity checks conducted by national football association ethics bodies are not limited to verifying criminal records or formal sporting sanctions. They encompass a holistic assessment of a candidate's honesty, cooperation, and compliance with the applicable code of ethics. The case also confirms that 'using' a falsified document under an Article 15-type provision is a standalone violation regardless of personal involvement in the forgery, and that CAS will not disturb sanctions within a prescribed range unless they are grossly and evidently disproportionate. It further establishes that Article R65.2 of the CAS Code does not extend to decisions of national (as opposed to international) federations.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2011/A/2426 CAS 2011/A/2625 CAS 2021/A/7875 CAS 2017/A/5356 CAS 2018/A/5769 TAS 2022/A/9175

Frequently asked questions about Bangura

Why was Aminata Bangura disqualified from the SLFA presidential election?

The SLFA Ethics Board found that Bangura had submitted a police clearance certificate that was falsified because she had not completed the required two-stage fingerprint process at the CID headquarters. The Sierra Leone Police rescinded the certificate on 9 July 2025, stating it was 'issued in default done on false declaration of a proxy.' The SLFA Ethics Board declared her ineligible on 19 July 2025, also finding she had been untruthful during the integrity check hearing.

Did Bangura get to stand in the SLFA elections despite the disqualification?

Yes. On 31 July 2025, the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division granted provisional measures staying the SLFA Ethics Board Decision and declaring her eligible to stand. She participated in the 2 August 2025 SLFA Elective Congress but was ultimately not elected. The provisional measures did not affect the final outcome of the CAS appeal, which dismissed her case on 5 October 2026.

What standard of proof did CAS apply in the Bangura case and was it met?

The applicable standard was 'comfortable satisfaction,' consistent with the SLFA Code of Ethics and CAS disciplinary jurisprudence. The Sole Arbitrator found this standard met on both the falsification charge (Article 15.1) and the dishonesty/failure-to-cooperate charge (Article 20). He was comfortably satisfied that the certificate was falsified because the mandatory two-step fingerprint process was not completed, and that Bangura's multiple inconsistent accounts of events on 9–10 June 2025 demonstrated she had not been truthful with the Ethics Board.

Were the sanctions against Bangura — a NLe 5,000 fine and one-year ban — upheld by CAS?

Yes. Article 15.2 of the SLFA Code of Ethics provides for a fine of up to NLe 5,000,000 and a ban of up to two years. The Sole Arbitrator noted the fine was 'at the lower end of the range' and the ban 'at the mid-point,' and applied the test of whether the sanctions were 'grossly and evidently disproportionate.' He concluded that threshold was not met and confirmed the sanctions in full.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.