Latest news with #SAWaterPolo
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.
Daily Maverick
14-05-2025
- Sport
- Daily Maverick
Swimming SA vs SA Water Polo – landmark body governance battle set to begin in high court
Swimming South Africa's attempted interdict against South Africa Water Polo for, among other matters, 'interfering with governance and administration', will be heard at the Western Cape Division of the High Court on Wednesday. Swimming South Africa's (Swimming SA's) legal battle to enforce an interdict against South Africa Water Polo (SA Water Polo) begins on 14 May at the Western Cape Division of the High Court. Swimming SA initially sent a cease and desist letter, via its attorneys, to SA Water Polo on 19 March requesting that the new governing body 'immediately desist from holding itself out to be the custodian and administrator of water polo in the Republic'. This came after SA Water Polo issued a letter of intent seven days previously, stating its formation as a new governing body was 'dedicated to advancing the game at all levels'. In this letter, posted on social media, SA Water Polo outlined that it was 'not a breakaway' water polo faction, governed by Swimming SA, instead calling it an 'empowered evolution' of the sport in the country. Swimming SA, meanwhile, argued that SA Water Polo 'has been established in contravention of the Sports and Recreation Act, our client's Constitution as well as the Constitution of Sascoc [South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee] – (and the Olympic Charter)'. This will be argued in court. Swimming SA, in its initial cease and desist letter, demanded that SA Water Polo's letter of intent be retracted and that the newly formed group post a separate article in which SA Water Polo 'confirm that water polo is solely administered' by Swimming SA. SA Water Polo did not bow to these legal demands – the matter is now in the hands of the Western Cape Division of the High Court. Swimming SA, in its cease and desist letter, claims SA Water Polo is 'passing itself off as the organiser and administrator of water polo in the Republic'. Swimming SA has also claimed that SA Water Polo has encouraged the boycotting of Swimming SA events and is interfering with its administration of water polo, a claim the new group has vehemently denied. A positive court outcome for SA Water Polo could set a welcome precedent for several other sporting organisations that struggle to elect new leaders under the current structures. Swimming SA also oversees swimming, open water swimming, diving and artistic swimming. South Africa's sporting fraternity has a leadership problem – which Sascoc president Barry Hendricks has admitted – and this could open the door for other sporting codes. State of play SA Water Polo, according to the affidavits submitted by its members, many of whom are currently still registered members of Swimming SA, is not seeking governance of water polo. Instead, its ambitions lie in helping to organise the structures of the sport for it to improve. SA Water Polo does, however, seek to apply for membership at World Aquatics to continue the development of the sport. SA Water Polo argues that with the evolution of the sport, which has become increasingly more professional, Swimming SA's ability to administer the sport is failing. Last year, Swimming SA withdrew the national men's and women's teams from the Paris Olympic Games despite both sides obtaining continental qualification. The decision was devastating to several players and support staff, who had sacrificed careers and studies for the Games. This, among many other factors over the past few years, has emboldened SA Water Polo to organise and attempt to ensure that the sport runs smoothly. SA Water Polo has opened registration for water polo players, officials and coaches and at this stage has accumulated more than 750 signatures. The new organisation plans to use the proof of membership, which exceeds Swimming SA's water polo membership, in its attempt to become a member of World Aquatics — the international aquatics board. SA Water Polo has not yet applied as it continues to hold out the hope of working alongside Swimming SA which, it hopes, will end in a 'peaceful transfer of authority to SA Water Polo to run water polo in South Africa'. Whether SA Water Polo's application will be accepted by World Aquatics is being disputed. While Swimming SA argues that the Sascoc constitution and the Sports and Recreation Act designate and protect it as the sole governing body of the sport, SA Water Polo argues that Swimming SA has no innate right to that position, which should be held by an organisation with the best interests of the sport at heart. Swimming SA has also claimed, through the affidavit of chief executive Shaun Adriaanse, that its 'statutory rights under the National Sport and Recreation Act are threatened with irreparable harm' because of SA Water Polo. DM
Daily Maverick
24-04-2025
- Sport
- Daily Maverick
Swimming SA and SA Water Polo prepare to do battle in high court on 14 May
Swimming South Africa's attempts to restrain an autonomous water polo body will be heard by a high court judge next month. South Africa Water Polo (SAWP) and Swimming South Africa (SSA) are due to meet in court next month for a judge to determine whether the former is allowed to continue to operate following a cease-and-desist letter sent by SSA. A successful outcome for SAWP could mean a body other than SSA overseeing the sport in South Africa for the first time, which would come as a relief for SAWP's members, who make up the majority of the country's water polo fraternity. Affidavits from SSA and SAWP have been filed in court and are on the public record as the two groups prepare to meet in the Western Cape Division of the High Court in Cape Town on 14 May. SSA is seeking an interdict to restrain SAWP from behaving as if 'it had the authority to govern or administer the sport of water polo in South Africa' and to stop the group from instructing people to boycott SSA events. Matthew Kemp, an attorney and an SSA member, is one of the respondents named by SSA. Kemp has called SSA's application 'factually and legally baseless', claiming that SAWP has not claimed to be the authority of the sport and has not called on SSA members to boycott events. In his 92-page affidavit, Kemp recognises SSA as the governing body of aquatic sports (water polo, synchronised swimming, open water swimming, swimming and diving) in South Africa, as set out by World Aquatics. However, Kemp said that as water polo has professionalised and evolved, 'its administrative development requirements have become increasingly distinct from those of swimming', and the team sport requires an administrative body dedicated to its 'specific needs'. A new body Kemp said SSA had 'no legal basis to interfere with the work now to be undertaken by SA Water Polo in the way which it seeks to do so in this application' because: SA Water Polo is not a member of SSA — which is a voluntary association; SA Water Polo is not a national federation as defined by the National Sport and Recreation Act 110 of 1998; and SA Water Polo is not a national federation recognised by World Aquatics. As per SAWP's initial letter of intent, Kemp purported that SAWP was not a breakaway organisation, but rather an 'emergent organisation', which had invited SSA to collaborate. 'But, if [SSA] does not cooperate, [SAWP] will ultimately seek to replace [SSA] as the internationally recognised body responsible for water polo in South Africa.' It plans to do this by applying to World Aquatics to be recognised as the governing body of the sport in SA, which World Aquatics' constitution permits, with the needs of the athletes of a country being the determining factor. Back and forth Shaun Adriaanse, SSA's CEO, in his 10-page affidavit in response to SAWP, said, 'a significant portion of Kemp's affidavit is focused on criticising the applicant's administration of the sport of water polo'. He said this was not relevant to the court proceedings and 'should be disregarded'. Despite noting that the governance of SSA was not what was being challenged in court, Adriaanse said SSA 'took heed of concerns that were being raised regarding the administration of aquatics, including water polo, and established an operations committee to support the administration of water polo'. He said the governance model of the sport was not being challenged, and 'should be left to be determined by the members of the applicant through the appropriate mechanisms'. These mechanisms, such as going to World Aquatics and Sascoc, are what SAWP intends to do, as laid out in Kemp's affidavit. Adriaanse said SAWP was 'actively interfering in [SSA's] administration and governance of the aquatic discipline of water polo, or at least are intent upon doing so'. He said SAWP 'intend to take over the administration and governance of water polo, despite the fact that they have no right under our law to do so. 'They have no right to wrest the governance of water polo from the existing (locally and internationally recognised) federation that is responsible for its control and administration. 'That decision must come from within the sport, and they must first get recognition from Sascoc and World Aquatics, which they have not even applied for.' According to what SAWP has outlined, its first point of call is not to apply for recognition but rather to engage with SSA to work together. If that fails to materialise, SAWP will seek recognition from World Aquatics. 'SA Water Polo has the overwhelming support of the largest and most active entities responsible for administering the sport of water polo at local level, including Gauteng Water Polo, Cape Town Metro and Winelands Water Polo, Nelson Mandela Bay Water Polo, and SA Masters Water Polo,' said Kemp. DM
