Fabrice Ngoga Shema won the FERWAFA presidency with an almost unprecedented mandate, securing 51 of the 53 votes cast in an emphatic endorsement from those entrusted with running Rwandan football. He took office with a strong mandate, considerable goodwill and expectations that his leadership would bring stability and renewed energy to the federation. I was among those who welcomed his election. However, just months into his four-year mandate, that optimism has been seriously tested. ALSO READ: RIB: Shema arrest linked to personal business, not FERWAFA The head of Rwandan football is in custody following his arrest by the Rwanda Investigation Bureau (RIB) over allegations arising from his private business activities. RIB has been categorical that the case is unrelated to his role at FERWAFA. Shema has since been denied bail and is facing allegations involving bounced cheques and the fraudulent acquisition of property worth about $600,000 (approximately Rwf880 million). He denies the allegations and maintains that his company acted in good faith. Those remain allegations, and Shema is innocent until proven guilty. That principle must not be compromised simply because he occupies one of the most prominent positions in Rwandan sport. But there is another question, separate from his criminal liability, that FERWAFA can no longer avoid. Can the football federation function effectively and maintain public confidence when its president is in detention, with no clear indication of when he will be able to resume his duties? The question matters because leadership is not only about whether an individual is eventually convicted or acquitted. It is also about availability, credibility, institutional confidence and the ability to exercise authority. Shema’s legal problems may have nothing to do with football. His absence, however, inevitably affects FERWAFA. We must remember that FERWAFA is not a private company that can simply wait indefinitely for its chief executive to return. It is the governing body of Rwandan football, responsible for national teams, domestic competitions, clubs, referees and Rwanda’s relationships with regional, continental and global football authorities. If its elected president is unavailable for an uncertain period, the institution needs clarity. FERWAFA’s statutes provide mechanisms for dealing with presidential incapacity or absence, including the transfer of executive responsibilities to the first vice-president. That is why first vice-president Claudine Gasarabwe has since taken charge of the federation on Shema’s behalf. ALSO READ: FERWAFA boss’ appeal delayed as parties work on undisclosed agreement If Shema’s absence becomes prolonged, the federation’s governing structures may ultimately have to consider an extraordinary general assembly and the election of a substantive replacement for the remainder of his mandate. That would not amount to a judgement on Shema’s guilt. It would be a question of institutional continuity and good governance. There is also an uncomfortable reality that needs to be confronted, if I may borrow a phrase from cricket: even if Shema ultimately wins his legal case, FERWAFA will still have to address the uncertainty surrounding his leadership. Trust is not exclusively a legal concept. A person can be legally innocent while an institution can legitimately question whether circumstances have made the effective exercise of his leadership difficult. Football, particularly at the professional level, is highly sensitive to questions of integrity and governance. FIFA and other football governing bodies have long stressed that the credibility of the game depends not only on what happens on the pitch but also on the conduct and governance of those who administer it. That does not mean football administrators should be removed simply because they have been accused of a crime. Such a standard would be problematic, particularly in systems where allegations could be used to undermine elected officials before due process has run its course. But neither should an elected position effectively remain frozen while an institution waits indefinitely for a legal process to conclude. It would therefore be prudent for FERWAFA to communicate clearly. Silence only creates room for speculation and unnecessary uncertainty within the game. Within the limits of the law and the ongoing proceedings, the federation should explain how its leadership responsibilities are currently being exercised, who has authority to make decisions and what contingency measures are available if Shema’s detention continues. More importantly, FERWAFA’s members may eventually have to decide what is best for the institution, independently of the outcome of Shema’s case. If he is acquitted, he should be free to seek a return to office. But an acquittal would not automatically erase the governance questions created by a prolonged absence. Conversely, a conviction would present an entirely different set of challenges for his position. I am not here to pass judgement on the accused, but to put the situation into perspective. At this point, all options should be on the table. Shema won an overwhelming mandate, and that mandate deserves respect. So does the presumption of innocence. But the mandate belongs to FERWAFA, not to one individual. Rwandan football cannot afford to become hostage to a legal case, whatever its eventual outcome. The priority should be protecting the credibility, continuity and integrity of the institution. Shema’s legal battle will be decided by the courts, where due process must take its course. FERWAFA’s leadership question, however, is ultimately a matter of football governance. That conversation should begin now.
