SAFA vs BFC

Aftermath

SAFAvsBFC 2021 Summary Q&A

Notwithstanding the Boland Falconry Club's (BFC) termination of their South Africa Falconry Association (SAFA) membership on 11 September 2021, the BFC2020MC opted to continue with the SAFAvsBFC 2021 independent investigation until the 2021 BFC Annual General Meeting (AGM), held on 18 September 2021.

So what was the purpose of the SAFAvsBFC 2021 Independent Investigation, what was investigated and what was independently establishedfound?

Regrettably, due to ongoing court actions involving the BFC member, the full report of the SAFAvsBFC 2021 Independent Investigation will not be publicly disclosed at this time. However, once all legal matters are finalized, the complete detailed 249-page document will be published on this site.

The reason why the BFC called for an independent investigation was as a result of evidence surfacing that SAFA did not act impartial in the matter between the implicated BFC member and the BFC. SAFA openly sided with the BFC member. Further information surfaced that SAFA was not acting in good faith and the BFC was legally advised should it continue the BFC was recommended to ask for independent arbitration. The purpose of the investigative report was to be prepared at an independent hearing. Fortunately all communications between all parties was in writing, thus excluding heresay, often in the case of verbal exchanges.

Firstly we will look at the SAFA allegations filed against the BFC and the independent findings and results.

1-SAFA ALLEGATION: The BFC 2020 Special Management Committee Meeting held on 7 November 2020 was unconstitutional.

INDEPENDENT FINDING: The meeting was found to be constitutional, legitimate, a quorum present, transparent, and a structured intervention to save the BFC from collapse. No evidence of malicious intent or infringement of member rights was found and the elected interim BFC 2020 management committee legtimate.

2-SAFA ALLEGATION: The BFC suspended the implicated BFC member unconstitutionally, infringing on his rights.

INDEPENDENT FINDING: The suspension was found to be a lawful a neutral act in accordance with the BFC's Disciplinary Code. The suspension was paused by mutual consent while the CapeNature (CN) confiscation was clarified.

3-SAFA ALLEGATION: The BFC's administrative and management failures resulted in CN's criminal action against the implicated BFC member.

INDEPENDENT FINDING: The implicated BFC member was personally responsible for his falconry activities and the resulting criminal charges. No evidence was found that the BFC was implicated or that their failures contributed to implicated BFC member's confiscation and criminal charges. The BFC cannot be held accountable for BFC member activities and behaviour outside club activities. BFC members are accountable and responsible for their private and personal behaviour.

4-SAFA ALLEGATION: The BFC accepted the novel CapeNature (CN) permit conditions without referencing SAFA.

INDEPENDENT FINDING: The BFC shared all CN permit application forms and documents with SAFA. Although SAFA acknowledged receiving information about the new permit conditions, they provided limited input or response.

5-SAFA ALLEGATION: The BFC accepted microchipping club raptors without acknowledging SAFA

INDEPENDENT FINDING: The BFC's research into microchipping was found to be a legitimate internal effort to explore modern technology and cost-effective options. No evidence suggested they were deviating from SAFA standards or putting birds at risk.

6-SAFA ALLEGATION: The BFC was continuously unhelpful in assisting the implicated BFC member in his criminal charges.

INDEPENDENT FINDING: The BFC was found to be prepared to assist the implicated BFC member but not to share members' personal information without their consent. The BFC deemed the implicated BFC members' matter with CN to be a private matter not a matter for the BFC to get involved in.

7-SAFA ALLEGATION: The BFC was deceitful, hostile, combative, confrontational, and reluctant to cooperate with SAFA

INDEPENDENT FINDING: The BFC's reluctance to cooperate was found to be a natural response to SAFA's escalating hostility and bullying tactics. The investigation found no evidence of deceitful or hostile behaviour by the BFC.

IN SUMMARY: The independent investigation concluded that SAFA’s allegations against the BFC were unfounded and that the BFC acted in good faith throughout the conflict. The report highlights SAFA’s failures in governance, communication, and upholding the interests of falconry as a whole.

1-BFC ALLEGATION: SAFA's disciplinary process, which resulted in the termination of the BFC's SAFA membership, was unconstitutional.

INDEPENDENT FINDING: The investigation found that SAFA's disciplinary process did not align with the SAFA constitution and failed to comply with basic disciplinary best practices. The termination of the BFC's membership was considered an abuse of power without due process, infringing on the BFC's rights and conflicting with natural justice.

2-BFC ALLEGATION: SAFA was not impartial in its investigation of the BFC

INDEPENDENT FINDING: SAFA's actions throughout the investigation demonstrated bias and a lack of impartiality. This was further evident in the distribution of the SAFA Position Statement to members for a vote without providing the BFC with an opportunity as first respondent. The fact that the SAFA chairman was leading the investigation against the BFC and not disclosing him being involved on the day on the raid, proof of SAFA's selective transparrency.

3-BFC ALLEGATION: SAFA employed bullying tactics in its investigation.

INDEPENDENT FINDING: The investigation found that SAFA did employ bullying tactics. This included intimidation through personal attacks, unsubstantiated accusations, and the use of a social media platform SAFA Members WhatsApp Group (SAFAMWAG) to spread misinformation. This increased when the BFC2020MC upheld their responsibillity in terms of their fidiciary duties.

4-BFC ALLEGATION: SAFA overreached in involving itself in the internal affairs of the BFC in conducting its investigation.

INDEPENDENT FINDING: SAFA was found to have interfered in the BFC's internal affairs, particularly by instructing the BFC to accept responsibility for the members actions, share BFC confidential information, pay for the members legal fees, pushing a narative for the BFC to adopt.This was considered overreach, as SAFA claims not to interfere in club internal matters.

5-BFC ALLEGATION: SAFA protected the BFC member, not a member of SAFA at the detriment of the BFC it actual member.

INDEPENDENT FINDING: SAFA's investigation showed a bias towards the BFC member, extending unwarranted leniency and protecting him at the expense of the BFC. This was evident in their failure to investigate or sanction the implicated BFC member for his actions, despite acknowledging his failures.

6-BFC ALLEGATION: SAFA was misrepresented in its BFC investigation as no SAFA member club or its representatives, as per the SAFA Constitution may serve on the SAFA Exco, whilst being constitionally non-compliant. However, SAFA allowed a CFC member to serve as SAFA Chairman, leading an investigation against the BFC.

INDEPENDENT FINDING: The investigation concluded that a SAFA member club in a state of non-compliance cannot serve on the SAFA Exco. SAFA annually is oblidged to validate membership compliance for the purposes of representation and voting. The CFC at the time of the investigation was non-compliant as reflected in various SAFA communications. SAFA failed in its own compliance and thus all decisions taken considered non-representative.

7-BFC ALLEGATION: SAFA's failure to comment and take action against the BFC after its non-compliant disclosure (20 November 2020 to 6 April 2021) but deemed it appropriate to "investiagte" BFC constitutional failes after the arrest of the BFC member is considered subjective.

INDEPENDENT FINDING: Considering the timeline of events from 7 November 2020 to June 2021 and the BFC not being comfortable with SAFA's "neutrality" as a result of SAFA not being fully transparrent, and on the other side SAFA not being "happy" with the BFC's resistance to unfounded recommendations , looking at the communications exchanged, highlights SAFA's attempts to name and shame the BFC.

8-BFC ALLEGATION: SAFA directly interfered unlawfully through some of it representatives in the legally constituted BFC 2021 AGM on 18 September 2021. Is that a valid observation?

INDEPENDENT FINDING: SAFA was officially invited to the BFC AGM, but declined the invitation. Instead, disruption was orchestrated through a BFC member, who presented false naratives and information about the BFC's status and threatened disciplinary action against other BFC members. The BFC2020MC deemed this behaviour unethical, unlawful, and malicious. Following the BFC AGM correspondence was directed to the SAFA secretary requesting clearnce to whether SAFA sactioned certain SAFA Exco members to intervene in the BFC AGM as it was presented to that effect at the AGM. The SAFA response was that no such mandate was issued. Upon a followup on the question was whether SAFA would institute action against its offials for misreprensentation. No response was received. Considering the communications chain it appeared SAFA give their Exco freedom, with no consequences being intrepreted that the Exco members misrepresented SAFA by not being mandated and despite being exposed, bear no consequences.

9-BFC ALLEGATION: Was the BFC2020MC request for an independent review/tribunal a reasonable request, considering the manner how SAFA treated the BFC?

INDEPENDENT FINDING: The BFC's request for an independent review was found to valid, considering SAFA's lack of impartiality and failure to fully transparent with its information and actions.