Latest news with #JudithCloete
Daily Maverick
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
SA Water Polo has the right to exist, judge rules in a blow to Swimming SA's interdict bid
South African Water Polo could very well become the governing body of the sport after a vital court ruling. The breakaway South African Water Polo (SAWP) organisation has won the legal right to exist and could even evolve into the sport's national federation, according to a judgment handed down by the Western Cape Division of the High Court against Swimming South Africa (SSA). In a strong ruling after an urgent application brought by SSA for a final interdict against SAWP, Judge Judith Cloete found that SSA 'does not have an exclusive right in perpetuity to govern or administer the sport of water polo in South Africa'. It's a huge blow for SSA, whose years of well-documented poor governance could be coming to an end – in water polo at least. The court ruling will also come with a heavy bill, estimated to be around R1-million after SSA was ordered to pay costs. SSA, as the currently recognised national federation for aquatic disciplines including water polo, by both the National Sport and Recreation Act (NSRA) and World Aquatics, sought to prevent SAWP from attempting to administer or govern water polo in South Africa and from interfering in SSA's affairs. Judge Cloete found this to be against both the framework established in (or by) the NSRA and against South Africa's Constitution. 'The definition of 'national federation' in the NSRA makes no mention of only one national governing body being permitted to qualify as such in South Africa,' Judge Cloete said in her judgment. 'Although the definition refers to 'a national governing body' it does not necessarily follow that there can be only one such body for all aquatic disciplines in this country. 'The applicant (SSA) cannot seriously suggest that the respondents (SAWP) do not have the constitutionally entrenched right to freedom of association contained in section 18 of the Bill of Rights, and that the same applies to any individual water polo player wishing to join the respondents. 'The Constitutional Court has made clear that freedom of association is a fundamental right which protects against coercion, enables individuals to organise around particular areas of concern, and to hold both public and private bodies to account. 'The right has dual content in that it allows for a person to freely associate (the positive element) as well as to decide not to associate at all (the negative element). 'In addition, section 16 of the Bill of Rights entrenches the right to freedom of expression subject to certain exclusions, none of which are applicable in the present matter.' SAWP's mandate SAWP was established on simple principles to grow and improve the sport of water polo in the country. SSA applied to the court for an urgent interdict against SAWP to prevent it from 'interfering' in its mandate to govern and administer water polo in SA. SAWP was formed in early 2025, after many senior coaches, referees, administrators and players, including Olympians and world champions from around South Africa, lost faith in SSA to represent the interests of the sport. They decided to join under the banner of a new body, which would be built on the principles of transparency and sporting excellence. SSA argued this was illegal on several grounds and initially sought broad interdictory relief, including preventing SAWP from 'passing off' as having the authority to govern water polo. That line of argument was abandoned owing to lack of evidence. The remaining accusations forming the basis for the interdict were that SAWP was: Purporting to carry out the administration or governance of water polo in South Africa. SSA argued that SAWP's name ('South African Water Polo NPC') implied it was the responsible entity and that an open letter from SAWP outlined steps relating to administration and governance, which SSA claimed fell solely under its authority since 1992; Interfering with the affairs of SSA, specifically by directing or encouraging persons or entities to boycott or avoid participating in events held under SSA's auspices; Dissuading or discouraging people from participating in local or international water polo events organised by SSA; Interfering with SSA's communications to its water polo membership (by encouraging members to ignore communications or fail to pass them on); and Securing sponsorships or raising funds ostensibly to fund the administration of water polo and teams organised by SAWP to represent South Africa abroad. In its responding papers, SAWP argued that the SSA 'has no right to suppress criticism and stand in the way of SAWP (and its members) from acting lawfully, in the interests of its members, and with the utmost good faith'. SAWP argued that 'in response to Swimming South Africa's systematic and well-documented failures over the last three decades, SA Water Polo seeks, in the short term, to organise and unite clubs, players, coaches and referees, and to develop high-performance programmes for its members; and in the longer-term, to apply for membership with World Aquatics in order to ensure that SA Water Polo teams can compete at the highest international level'. 'Misconceived right' SSA's accusations were dismissed by Judge Cloete as she sided with SAWP in that it has the legal right to exist. 'The applicant's case is that it has a clear statutory right worthy of protection because in South Africa there are currently no separate bodies governing various disciplines of aquatic sports,' the judge noted. 'In its words, the South African regulation of sports exists within an international framework and not within a vacuum. 'To my mind the applicant has misconceived the nature of its right. It is correct that at present it is the only national federation for aquatic disciplines recognised by World Aquatics. 'However, SAWP is not purporting to hold itself out as a national federation. That is the only right which the applicant has which is worthy of protection. 'I agree with the respondents that the applicant does not have an exclusive right in perpetuity to govern or administer the sport of water polo in South Africa. 'Accordingly, it has no right to prevent the respondents from taking steps to legally acquire that right in due course (including by establishing its legitimacy in the wider stakeholder community by creating the appropriate organisational structures in the interim). 'This may ultimately result in the applicant having the authority to govern or administer water polo in South Africa in future, but this is nothing more than an incidence of our constitutionally entrenched democracy. 'It does not confer with it a legal right of the applicant worthy of interdictory protection.' Following the judgment, SAWP interim CEO Robbie Taylor said: 'This win is important validation of the local water polo community's mission to restore purpose and world-class excellence to the sport we love so much. 'For the first time in a long time, the polo community is truly excited about the future again. We're ready to put South Africa back on the map as a water polo-playing country with teams that are well prepared and are given every possible opportunity to succeed. 'Our first major event will be a highly competitive and exciting Winter League to be held in August 2025 in Nelson Mandela Bay.' SSA claims a victory of sorts? In an emailed response to Daily Maverick requesting reaction to the outcome, SSA sent a statement, which was not attributed to any leadership figure at SSA. 'Swimming South Africa (SSA) acknowledges the judgment handed down on 18 June 2025 by Judge Cloete in the matter concerning the governance of aquatic sports in South Africa,' the statement read. 'As the officially recognised national federation responsible for swimming, water polo, artistic swimming, diving and open water swimming, SSA is currently reviewing the full implications of the ruling in consultation with our legal team. The federation will determine its next steps after due deliberation at board level. 'The judgment affirms the constitutional right to freedom of association, a principle embedded in the Bill of Rights. At the same time, the court unequivocally confirmed that Swimming South Africa remains the authoritative governing body for aquatic sports in the country. 'Importantly, the ruling recognises that Water Polo South Africa (WPSA) [sic], a private entity, does not seek nor hold any formal recognition from the South African government, Sascoc, or the international governing body, World Aquatics. 'While we respect the outcome of the judicial process, we are disappointed that our application to interdict activities which we believe compromise the structure, order, and integrity of the sport was not granted. Nonetheless, SSA remains steadfast in our mandate to regulate and grow aquatics responsibly and inclusively. 'To be absolutely clear: Water Polo South Africa [sic] is not affiliated to Swimming South Africa, nor is it authorised to organise competitions under our name. Claims that it may issue provincial or national colours, or facilitate international representation, are both misleading and unfounded. 'This responsibility lies exclusively with Swimming South Africa and is governed by our constitution and operational protocols, which do not provide for dual membership at any level of the sport.' Interestingly, SSA's post-judgment statement infers that SAWP (whom they misname as WPSA despite clear wording in the judgment, finding affidavits and other correspondence, adding to the general sense of incompetence) are passing themselves off as the governing body. It's an accusation that SSA themselves withdrew and that Judge Cloete found baseless. DM
Daily Maverick
15-05-2025
- Sport
- Daily Maverick
Swimming South Africa may have sunk its legal case against South Africa Water Polo
The decision on Swimming South Africa's attempted interdict against the newly formed South Africa Water Polo is pending after blunders blight the national federation's case. Swimming South Africa appears to have sunk its Western Cape Division of the High Court case in an attempt to interdict the newly formed South Africa Water Polo. There were several blunders in both Swimming SA's heads of argument, written and sent to the court before the court date, as well as its lawyer's defence set out before Judge Judith Cloete on Wednesday. Towards the end of proceedings, Swimming SA conceded that SA Water Polo did not need its consent to exist, practically relinquishing the original reason for its request for an interdict against the water polo body. Swimming SA also did not stipulate in its heads of argument which statutory right, which forms the basis of its case, SA Water Polo transgressed. Later, Swimming SA stated that SA Water Polo was passing itself off as the governing body for water polo. It simultaneously claimed that SA Water Polo was a body parallel to Swimming SA. Judge Cloete said the statements were contradictory. After a back-and-forth, Swimming SA submitted that only the latter was true, that SA Water Polo was a parallel body and was not passing itself off as the administrator of the sport. Sinking defence Swimming SA, in its argument, referred to Section 1 of the National Sport and Recreation Act 110 of 1998 (NSRA Act) in its defence. The NSRA defines a national federation as the national governing body for a code of sport 'recognised by the relevant controlling international … body as the only authority for the administration and control of the relative code of sport … in the Republic'. But Judge Cloete contended that SA Water Polo had never purported to be a national federation, but instead, a national body. The difference was that there could be only one national federation, but several national bodies. An organisation also first became a national body before becoming a national federation. Swimming SA attempted to argue the merits of SA Water Polo's future application for membership of World Aquatics, but the judge ruled this as irrelevant to the current court case, and something that World Aquatics would have to decide on. Judge Cloete continually asked Swimming SA's lawyers which law stated that there could be no other national body besides itself. Swimming SA eventually concurred that a separate national body was permitted to exist, 'but it won't get [SA Water Polo] anywhere'. The judge asked: given Swimming SA's acceptance of SA Water Polo as a national body, why then was Swimming SA asking for an interdict against SA Water Polo if it recognised its right to exist? The court proceedings began with Swimming SA claiming that SA Water Polo should not be allowed to exist, but after Swimming SA could not cite laws inhibiting SA Water Polo's existence, it moved on to arguing that SA Water Polo's existence came with 'consequences'. The consequences, Swimming SA said, included that members of SA Water Polo would not qualify for provincial or national representation because they would not be members of the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (Sascoc). Swimming SA also argued that SA Water Polo members would be unable to participate in organised water polo events such as the Olympic Games and the World Championships because it was not yet a registered member of World Aquatics. The World Aquatics Championships are set to take place in Singapore in July 2025. Swimming SA argued that SA Water Polo had disrupted the preparation for this event, in which the national men's and women's water polo teams were expected to participate. Constitutional rights Swimming SA said that SA Water Polo had interfered with Swimming SA's governance and administration of the sport by urging its water polo members to join SA Water Polo. SA Water Polo used section 18 of the South African Constitution dealing with the freedom of association in its defence. Section 18 encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria. SA Water Polo argued that neither the NSRA Act nor Sascoc's constitution inhibited SA Water Polo from existing, which meant that Swimming SA was not entitled to an interdict. SA Water Polo's lawyers used a letter of intent, published on 19 March – which had prompted Swimming SA to seek the interdict – as the basis of its argument that the water polo body was not attempting to usurp Swimming SA, as claimed. There was no evidence, based on the letter of intent, that SA Water Polo had attempted to usurp SA Swimming, the lawyers submitted. Members When Judge Cloete requested evidence that SA Water Polo had claimed to be the administrators of water polo in the country, Swimming SA indicated that members had left its federation to join SA Water Polo. Judge Cloete said that regardless of her decision, she could not force members to rejoin Swimming SA because they were not party to the court proceedings. She said that no evidence had been provided by Swimming SA on why those members had 'jumped pool', so SA Water Polo could not be blamed.
