Imagine appointing a committee to examine the management of an institution.
Among the proposed members are people who previously held important positions in that same institution.
Some may have performed excellently. Others may have unfinished responsibilities or decisions requiring explanation.
Should previous service automatically disqualify them?
Certainly not.
But should their previous records be examined before granting them another position of authority?
Absolutely.
That is the principle Nigerian football must apply as 𝐅𝐈𝐅𝐀 and 𝐂𝐀𝐅 prepare the 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐞 approved on 𝐎𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟐𝟐, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔.
The purpose is not to humiliate former administrators or prosecute personal disagreements.
It is to ensure that those assigned to correct institutional weaknesses have the integrity, independence and competence to perform that responsibility.
𝐀 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐡 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐚 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐡 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐬.
𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐎𝐋𝐕𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐃𝐎𝐎𝐑 𝐐𝐔𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍
Nigeria’s football administration has included officials who served across successive leadership periods, sometimes in different capacities.
Continuity can preserve valuable experience and institutional knowledge.
It can also create conflicts if individuals are invited to review decisions in which they previously participated.
That is why experience alone cannot be the qualification.
For anyone previously associated with the 𝐍𝐅𝐅, the relevant questions are straightforward.
What positions did the individual occupy? What authority did those positions carry? Which projects or decisions did the person supervise? What measurable achievements resulted? Were there documented audit findings, regulatory concerns or unresolved governance issues relating to those responsibilities?
The answers must come from records rather than rumours.
An official should not be blamed automatically for every problem that occurred during an administration. Responsibility must be connected to evidence.
But neither should holding office in the past confer an unquestioned entitlement to another appointment.
𝐀 𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐝.
𝐀 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝.
𝐅𝐈𝐅𝐀 𝐀𝐋𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐘 𝐑𝐄𝐐𝐔𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐒 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐆𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐂𝐇𝐄𝐂𝐊𝐒
This is not a new standard being proposed solely for Nigeria.
𝐅𝐈𝐅𝐀’s governance framework requires candidates for 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐬 to pass eligibility checks conducted by the 𝐅𝐈𝐅𝐀 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐞.
Its published guidance also recognizes that the selection process should consider competence, accountability and independence.
There is precedent for this requirement in Africa.
When 𝐅𝐈𝐅𝐀 announced 𝐆𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐚’s 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐞 in 𝐀𝐮𝐠𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟖, it expressly required eligibility checks for members.
When it announced the committee for 𝐂𝐨̂𝐭𝐞 𝐝’𝐈𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐫𝐞 in 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟎, it applied the same principle.
Nigeria should expect the same rigorous standard.
Beyond completing the formal checks, 𝐅𝐈𝐅𝐀 and 𝐂𝐀𝐅 should explain the professional criteria used to identify prospective members and provide appropriate confirmation that the required screening has been completed.
𝐖𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐄𝐅𝐂𝐂 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐈𝐂𝐏𝐂 𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐃𝐒?
The 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐅𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 (𝐄𝐅𝐂𝐂) and 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐭 𝐏𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐎𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 (𝐈𝐂𝐏𝐂) have lawful responsibilities concerning suspected corruption and related offences.
Where a prospective appointee has a documented history involving either agency, a credible integrity review should establish the relevant facts, legal status and outcome.
But the terminology must be precise.
An invitation for questioning is not a criminal conviction.
An investigation is not proof of misconduct.
A criminal charge is an allegation to be determined by a court.
An acquittal must not be portrayed as a conviction, and a documented conviction must not be concealed.
Any investigation that remains unresolved should be assessed fairly, considering its relevance, available evidence and the individual’s rights.
The same standard should apply to documented sporting disciplinary proceedings, procurement concerns, financial conflicts and professional misconduct findings.
Investigative records are not automatically public. 𝐅𝐈𝐅𝐀 and 𝐂𝐀𝐅 should obtain any protected information only through lawful procedures and appropriate authorities.
The objective is verified integrity screening, not trial by newspaper headline.
𝐍𝐎 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐒𝐇𝐎𝐔𝐋𝐃 𝐈𝐍𝐕𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐆𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐈𝐑 𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐈𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒
Integrity screening establishes whether someone meets the applicable eligibility requirements. Independence determines whether that individual can perform particular responsibilities without a conflict of interest.
The two must never be confused.
Anyone who previously participated in NFF financial decisions, electoral arrangements, procurement approvals or administrative actions subsequently placed under review should not investigate, audit or adjudicate those same matters.
Such individuals may possess relevant information and should cooperate with independent investigators. But they should not control the inquiry, select its findings or determine its conclusions.
𝐍𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰.
Where a conflict is limited, mandatory recusal and independent oversight may provide appropriate safeguards. Where previous involvement compromises the committee’s central responsibilities, the individual should not be appointed to that assignment.
This is not a presumption of wrongdoing. It is a necessary protection against institutional self-review.
𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.
𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐏𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐂 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐕𝐄𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐖𝐄𝐑𝐒
FIFA and CAF should disclose not only the qualifications and eligibility-screening status of committee members but also the conflict-of-interest and recusal safeguards that will prevent former officials from reviewing decisions in which they participated.
They should explain their selection criteria, confirm completion of eligibility screening and identify the safeguards protecting the committee’s independence.
All prospective members must meet the applicable standards, including those with no previous 𝐍𝐅𝐅 appointment.
The goal is not to ban familiar faces or reserve positions for a preferred group.
It is to make public service answerable to evidence.
Competent former officials should have their genuine contributions recognized. Serious adverse findings should receive appropriate consideration. Unsupported allegations should not be weaponized.
Nigerian football needs professionals who can reform the system without being beholden to its competing interests.
𝐀 𝐅𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐇 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐑𝐓, 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀 𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐒𝐎𝐍𝐀𝐋 𝐂𝐀𝐌𝐏𝐀𝐈𝐆𝐍
The 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐞’s responsibility is too important to become another contest over personalities.
It must examine the institutional problems, support lawful reforms and help restore confidence in football governance.
That demands integrity from the people entrusted with the assignment.
𝐅𝐈𝐅𝐀 and 𝐂𝐀𝐅 should publish the appointment criteria, provide relevant information about those selected and confirm that every member has passed the required eligibility checks.
𝐍𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞. 𝐍𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞.
That is how a reform process begins to earn trust.
𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐆𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐒𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐄𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐒 𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐃𝐀𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐘.
𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐏𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐍-𝐍𝐄𝐆𝐎𝐓𝐈𝐀𝐁𝐋𝐄.
We are all in this together.
Next: 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝟯 examines eleven institutional reforms and the responsibilities that must be defined before 𝐌𝐚𝐲 𝟑𝟏, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟕.
𝐏𝐚𝐮𝐥 𝐋𝐮𝐜𝐤𝐲 𝐎𝐤𝐨𝐤𝐮
𝐅𝐈𝐅𝐀 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝 | Former Nigeria Flying Eagles Vice-Captain | Former Super Eagles International | 𝐀𝐅𝐂𝐎𝐍 𝐒𝐢𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐌𝐞𝐝𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 | Football Historian | Football Analyst | Investigative Football Writer | Journalist-at-Large | Founder & CEO, Greater Tomorrow Children’s Fund (GTCF).
𝐀𝐔𝐓𝐇𝐎𝐑’𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓𝐄
This article concerns institutional integrity and fair eligibility screening. It does not allege that any identifiable former or prospective 𝐍𝐅𝐅 official committed an offence. References to 𝐄𝐅𝐂𝐂, 𝐈𝐂𝐏𝐂 and disciplinary proceedings describe matters that may warrant lawful verification, not findings of individual wrongdoing.
𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐄𝐀𝐑𝐂𝐇 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐘
Sources: 𝐅𝐈𝐅𝐀, Bureau of the Council Takes Key Decisions, 𝐎𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟐𝟐, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔; 𝐅𝐈𝐅𝐀 Governance Regulations, provisions on eligibility checks for 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐬; 𝐅𝐈𝐅𝐀, Appointment of a Normalisation Committee in 𝐆𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐚, 𝐀𝐮𝐠𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝟐𝟗, 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟖; 𝐅𝐈𝐅𝐀, Bureau of the FIFA Council Passes Decisions Concerning 𝐂𝐨̂𝐭𝐞 𝐝’𝐈𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐫𝐞 and Pakistan, 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟎.
The recommendations for public disclosures and historical reviews are independent governance proposals.
PaulOkokuMediaHub@gmail.com
𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧, 𝐚𝐬𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐨𝐭𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐥.
