More footballers involved in scandal – MFA boss
Malta Football Association boss Norman Darmanin Demajo believes more than one player was involved in a match-fixing scandal which has rocked the national team.
Reacting a day after former Malta international Kevin Sammut was handed a 10-year suspension, Dr Darmanin Demajo expressed doubt over whether all the guilty parties involved in the 2008 case had been punished.
“Regarding the outcome, I personally believe there had to be more players involved. But we need to respect the decision of UEFA’s Control and Disciplinary Body and in the absence of proof it would be unfair to arrive at any further conclusion,” the MFA president told The Sunday Times.
“The whistleblower in this case originally claimed that four players were involved. I personally believe you can’t fix a game with one player.”
However, Mr Sammut’s lawyer is insisting the European football association did not give his client a fair hearing.
Michael Sciriha spoke of “confusion” at Friday’s hearing before UEFA’s disciplinary board that slapped his client with a 10-year suspension.
“Kevin (Sammut) is disappointed at the way things developed and he still protests his innocence,” Dr Sciriha said.
The player is expected to appeal the ban when UEFA communicates the reasons for its decision, the lawyer said.
Mr Sammut, a midfielder, was accused of accepting bribes to throw the Malta v Norway game in Oslo five years ago. The UEFA prosecutor requested a lifetime ban.
Another two players, Stephen Wellman and Kenneth Scicluna, were cleared by the tribunal due to lack of evidence. The prosecution had asked for a three-year ban.
Mr Sammut arrived in Malta from Nyon in Switzerland yesterday afternoon but declined to comment. He was whisked away by family members as his lawyer addressed the press.
Dr Sciriha said the charges against his client were based on the “unreliable” testimony of Croat Mario Cvrtak, who was last year jailed for five years by a German court over a match-fixing scandal.
Mr Sammut was accused of meeting Mr Cvrtak in a hotel room in Oslo but when cross-examined the Croat could not provide specific details of the meeting, according to Dr Sciriha.
“Mr Cvrtak also admitted to not exchanging any money and that somebody else might have,” Dr Sciriha said, adding that when pressed to say who the other individual was, the Croat “admitted the person probably did not exist”.
The two other players, represented by different lawyers, were charged with being in the same lift as Mr Cvrtak.
“The evident confusion at the tribunal was incredible,” Dr Sciriha said, adding that his client attended the hearing “under protest”.
He explained that Mr Sammut wanted to produce 12 witnesses but since May, UEFA had failed to answer their queries on the procedure to be followed.
Dr Sciriha revealed that the hearing scheduled for May was postponed after his client refused to attend in protest at the way things were developing.
Mr Sammut did not produce any witnesses on Friday. One of the principal reasons was cost: he would have had to fork out all the travel and accommodation expenses for the witnesses. He was also not told if they would be heard.
Dr Sciriha said the UEFA prosecutor insisted on producing certain witnesses but the disciplinary board decided not to hear them. “At one stage they decided to hear Mr Cvrtak and in the afternoon told us to prepare our defence and asked us not to take a long time because they had another case after ours.”
Despite the ban imposed on his client, Dr Sciriha described the decision as “a legal victory” given that Mr Sammut did not produce witnesses.
“It was an unbalanced hearing but we managed to break the prosecution’s argument and instead of a lifetime ban my client got 10 years. The board did not have the courage to acquit my client, possibly because of all the hype surrounding the case, but their doubts may have been reflected in the sentence.”
In a statement Mr Wellman said he was “satisfied” with the outcome of the case. “It confirms my lack of involvement and knowledge of the alleged match-fixing scheme, a position that I have sustained since inception of the investigation by both the Malta Football Association and UEFA officers.”
Mr Wellman said UEFA’s disciplinary body reached its conclusion after holding two hearings at its headquarters in Nyon, Switzerland and after reviewing written submissions, witnesses and other evidence.
Lawyer Keith Borg assisted Mr Wellman.
9 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Michael Hudson
Aug 20th 2012, 16:05
I don't know why the big deal. We live in a highly corrupt country, football included. It's not a surprise at all to me. I have stopped following local football a long time ago. It seems trophies and cups are won whenever an anniversary of a club or president is coming.
Eric Sammut
Aug 20th 2012, 14:30
Gee, what's new? Team Malta have been fixing maches for ever. Look at their property and you would know right away.
matthew tanti
Aug 20th 2012, 10:44
"UEFA had failed to answer their queries on the procedure to be followed." Since when does a lawyer ask the court to tell him what the procedures are? It is his job to look them up! I am sure UEFA has written procedures!!!
Bernard Pollacco
Aug 20th 2012, 01:18
yet only one got charged......
Tonio Bone
Aug 19th 2012, 17:18
In my teens I used to follow my team VALLETTA FC to each and every game they played. When my age and maturity enabled me to have a much more focused and broad view of the world of Maltese football, I realized that perhaps all the rumours and gossip that Maltese soccer was intrinsically corrupt might, just might, be more than a myth! Hence I figured it would be better for me to spend my weekends following other less complicated and suspicious activities.......!
marco caruana
Aug 19th 2012, 11:37
biex naghtu naqa ragun lill Kevin Sammut dan huwa kaz li laqqat kollox hu , biex nkunu onesti il bookmakers jew min hadem il loghba rebah il flus meta Kevin kien diga ha s shower u kien bilqeghda u fil hin li saru it tlett goals zgur li kien hemm players ohra mdahhlin li bis sahha taghhom gara dan . 1+1 kulhadd jaf jamlu specjalment l MFA allura imissha tissospendi lill kull min kien involut f din il loba .
MALCOLM SEYCHELL
Aug 19th 2012, 10:39
MFA should investigate also the case itself.
A Mifsud
Aug 19th 2012, 14:05
they did. mfa investigated first and passed findings to uefa.
Joseph Mizzi
Aug 19th 2012, 10:16
The way sports associations and federations tackle disciplinary proceedings against their registered members is very different from the way normal legal procedure is carried out in an average court of law. A person accused of unsporting acts is considered guilty, even if there is only one credible witness. No amount of witnesses in his defence would have altered the disciplinary board's decision.
Such cases are not usually allowed to drag on indefinitely, like what happens in a regular court of law, and are often treated summarily.
I do not have the details on this case at hand, but what appears very evident is that Mr Cvrtak's evidence convinced the board about Mr Sammut's involvement, but did not convince it of the other two accused's, hence declaring them not guilty.
Like many observers, I too am convinced that one single man couldn't have affected the result of the match Norway vs Malta. But since no tangible evidence was brought to prove the other parties' guilt, there is nothing much that can be done now.
Kevin Sammut himself could have "collaborated" and spilled the beans against the other three colleagues involved in the scandal. But I think that he should have done this at the outset, and not now that the case is over and he having been banned for 10 years.
Please choose the reason of your report below: