The decision by CAF to remove the head of its Disciplinary Committee, Ousmane Kane, as official hearings into the controversial AFCON final between Morocco and Senegal begin, shows a serious intent to produce an uncontested judgement.
Kane, a Senegalese national, was replaced by his deputy, Kenyan Jane Njeri Onyango, on Monday to ensure impartiality in the investigation of the rare drama that characterized the explosive final won by the Teranga Lions in Rabat on 18 January.
As the Confederation of African Football examines the fallout from the disrupted 2025 Africa Cup of Nations final, legal voices now describe the Senegal national team’s decision to leave the pitch following referee Jean Claude Ndala’s 90th minute penalty decision against them as a decisive breach that may carry consequences far beyond the match itself.
Moroccan attorney Adil Mouline argues that the governing body faces a defining test, one that touches the core of sporting justice and the future authority of African football.
In a detailed statement shared on X, Mouline situates CAF’s dilemma within a broader legal challenge that extends across sport governance.
“The biggest challenge faced by lawmakers, regulators, courts, judges, disciplinary committees and decision-makers in general, including sport’s governing bodies such as CAF and FIFA, lies in determining the most appropriate and adequate sanction when an individual or a group commits a violation,” he wrote.
The continental body gave its reason for recusal of Kane as having been done “to avoid any potential conflict of interest, as one of the involved teams (Senegal) is his home country.”
“This change was implemented to guarantee transparency and credibility in the ongoing disciplinary process, which is examining incidents including crowd disturbances, alleged misconduct, and the temporary walk-off by Senegalese players and officials during the match,” reads the Caf statement.
Confiding in New Ziana, a source at the Caf headquarters in the 6th October City businees district of Cairo, said the matter is set to handled decisively.
“Disciplinary action, including potential suspensions for the Senegalese coach Pape Thiaw and fines, is expected to be announced in the coming days,” he hinted.
According to the legal expert Mouline, the context of the AFCON final intensifies the seriousness of the act.
“This challenge is heightened in high-stakes competitions such as the AFCON 2025 final, where the integrity of the sport, the credibility of the organizers, and the expectations of millions of supporters converge,” he said, referring directly to Senegal’s withdrawal against Morocco.
Mouline says that the incident is more than a random disciplinary matter. For him, it represents a moment that may define how rules apply at the highest level of African football.
“The incident involving the Senegal national team’s decision to leave the field of play during the AFCON 2025 final against the Moroccan national team presents precisely such a challenge,” he noted.
He calls on CAF’s Disciplinary Committee to assess the violation through several lenses, from its impact on public order to its effect on stadium safety and crowd behavior. Yet, he insists that two principles must guide the final ruling.
“Above all, two overarching goals must shape CAF Disciplinary Committee’s approach to sanctions: JUSTICE and DETERRENCE.”
On justice, Mouline rejects any outcome that allows a team to gain, even indirectly, from breaking competition rules.
“Justice requires that sanctions restore equilibrium. A team must not be allowed to benefit, directly or indirectly, from violations of competition rules,” he wrote.
In his view, the harm extends to the opposing side and to the competition itself.
“Justice therefore seeks to reaffirm the integrity of the competition, uphold the rights of the non-offending team, and ensure that violations do not distort sporting fairness or competitive balance,” Mouline said.
Deterrence, he adds, remains equally decisive, especially on a continental stage.
“The imposed measures must send a clear and unequivocal message that abandoning a match, particularly on a stage as significant as an AFCON final, is never an acceptable or strategically advantageous course of action.”
The lawyer also warned that a mild response may invite repetition.
“A weak sanction risks sending the message that such violations are tolerable or strategically viable,” he wrote, while a firm decision “protects the long-term integrity of the sport” and preserves confidence in CAF’s governance.
Mouline’s conclusion leaves little ambiguity about the outcome he views as legally sound.
For Mouline, CAF’s ruling now carries weight well beyond Senegal and Morocco.
“Every sanction sets a precedent,” he warned, adding that the decision will shape how future violations receive treatment across CAF competitions.
As the disciplinary process unfolds, the stakes remain high. The verdict may not only decide the fate of an AFCON final but also determine whether Senegal’s path to the 2026 World Cup stays open, and whether CAF asserts its authority at a moment when African football draws the attention of an entire continent.