The Report & Response
SAFA vs BFc
SAFAvsBFC 2021 Independent Investigation Report
Upon receiving the comprehensive 249-page document, the findings and conclusions were discussed with newly constituted BFC 2021 management committee (BFC2021MC). The BFC2022MC advised that the BFC2020MC directly take the matter up with SAFA.
Our legal advisor cited that the SAFAvsBFC 2021 Independent Investigation Report could have two outcomes. As the independent investigation was based on formal written formal and informal written communications between the parties involved and not verbal communication that could be doubted based on interpretation, the supporting documentation forms the foundation of the findings.
The one outcome could be that constructive dialogue in the interest of SA falconry could be entered into, which would be the preferred outcome. The other outcome could be rejection of the report. However, if the report is rejected, the rejection could implicate SAFA and its representation of SA falconers. and the principle of self-governance.
The SAFAvsBFC 2021 Independent Investigation Report was submitted to the newly elected SAFA chairman. The hope was that, as organisations, this document could serve as an initiation point to re-examine our statutes in the interest of falconry. It was clear that SAFA did not expect the BFC to go to this level with the matter at hand.
In response, SAFA rejected the findings. However, within its communication of rejection, it took the liberty to cherry-pick certain aspects of the investigation.
As per our legal advisor, if one rejects a report with no comment, other than a notice of rejection, that would be acceptable and no further communication entered into.
However, rejecting the report is one thing, but then to bone pick certain aspects, effectively means by interpretation that other than the matters raised, it must be accepted that those findings not challenged are true and correct?
SAFA’s selective rejection of the independent investigation’s findings was a troubling tactic that raises serious questions about their intent and the validity of their claims.
SAFA vs BFC
SAFA's Potential Motives:
Damage Control - Focus - Tactics
– Damage Control: SAFA might be cherry-picking aspects to address in order to minimize the damage to their reputation and avoid addressing the core issues of governance and fairness.
– Shifting Focus: By selectively focusing on certain points, they might be attempting to shift the conversation away from their more serious failures, such as their lack of transparency, impartiality, and accountability.
– Tactical Maneuver: It could be a strategic move to avoid taking responsibility for their actions and to deflect blame.
SAFA vs BFC
Legal Implications:
Legal Implications - The principles
– Selective Acceptance: The principle of “selective acceptance” (accepting some findings while rejecting others) could be seen as an attempt to manipulate the truth and could potentially be challenged in a legal setting.
– Lack of Integrity: The selective rejection of the report could be interpreted as a lack of integrity and a disregard for the process of independent investigation.
– Challenge in Court: The BFC could have argued in court that SAFA’s selective acceptance of the findings undermines the entire report and that the aspects not challenged should be considered true and valid.
SAFA vs BFC
Alternative Approach:
Focus on the Core Issues: Instead of focusing on unchallenged aspects, it might be more effective to address the core issues raised in the report, such as SAFA's failure to uphold due process, their lack of impartiality, and their inadequate governance structures.
– Challenge SAFA’s Claims: The BFC could have publicly challenged SAFA’s selective rejection and demanded that they address all the findings comprehensively.
– Advocate for Independent Review: The BFC could have considered advocating for a new independent review or mediation process to address the remaining concerns.
SAFA vs BFC
Conclusion:
It's more effective to focus on the core issues, challenge SAFA's selective rejection, and advocate for a thorough and independent review of the report's findings. This approach will be more effective in achieving a more transparent and accountable governance structure for falconry in South Africa. Fortunately CapeNature(CN) started to revise the Western Cape Falconry Policy, where falconers were invited to make recommendations.
“People will forgive you for being wrong, but they will never forgive you for being right – especially if events prove you right, while proving them wrong.”
©Avibus. All Rights Reserved.