Cricket SA sued over Teeger demotion

Local non-governmental organisation Citizens For Integrity (CFI) has taken Cricket South Africa (CSA) to court over its decision to strip Jewish cricketer David Teeger of his captaincy of the Under-19 Cricket World Cup (U19 CWC) team on 12 January this year.

The move, which United States antisemitism envoy and ambassador Deborah Lipstadt confirmed was antisemitic, sent shockwaves around the globe.

The papers were served on CSA in Melrose Estate, Johannesburg, on Friday, 4 July.

CFI’s affidavit makes several revealing points, including how CSA’s security advisor, Rory Steyn, conveyed that there was no security threat that required Teeger to be stripped of his captaincy, and that the decision may have been made in light of South Africa taking Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) around the same time.

“We assert that the core issue in the Teeger case is that CSA’s decision to remove him from the captaincy of the Proteas Under-19 cricket team was politically motivated, under the pretence of a fabricated security threat,” said Daniel Witz, attorney for CFI. “This political decision not only undermined Teeger’s constitutional rights but also jeopardised South Africa’s participation in international cricket.

“This decision impinged on the rights of all South Africans whose views may differ from those of the government,” said Witz. “At its heart, this case concerns fundamental constitutional, human rights, and equality issues.”

CSA stated at the time that its decision was in light of “security concerns” after Teeger made comments in support of Israel in the wake of Hamas’s 7 October massacre. CSA’s decision to strip Teeger of the captaincy came just more than a month after Teeger was cleared of breaching provisions of the codes of conduct of CSA and the Central Gauteng Lions regarding his comments. The independent inquiry was conducted by advocate Wim Trengove SC.

“The CFI case presents a strong challenge to CSA’s decision to remove David Teeger as captain,” said advocate Mark Oppenheimer, an expert on freedom of expression. “The application argues that there’s no reason to believe that keeping Teeger on the team while removing him as captain could have played any role in reducing the alleged security threat to the cricket matches. Therefore, the decision was irrational. Furthermore, even if there was a security threat, increasing security measures could have adequately protected the team.

“Removing Teeger appears to have been done with the ulterior motive to punish him after he was acquitted by Wim Trengove,” said Oppenheimer. “The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for future CSA decisions involving political controversies and the free expression of its members. It remains to be seen whether CSA will oppose the litigation.”

CFI filed its founding affidavit in the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng division, on 4 July. The first respondent is listed as Cricket South Africa NPC and the second as David Teeger. He and his family confirmed they aren’t party to the legal initiative.

“The decision by CSA was particularly troubling because it disregarded the findings of its own inquiry, which concluded that Teeger had done nothing wrong,” said Witz. “The ‘security’ rationale was neither supported by its own security advisors, nor was any consultation with these advisors made before the decision was taken. When the Teeger family consulted CSA’s security advisor, it was confirmed that there was no threat. CSA’s actions were therefore unilateral, unlawful, unconstitutional, and irrational.

“Furthermore, CSA has failed to provide a coherent explanation as to why a security threat was posed only if Teeger remained captain, but not if he remained a team member,” said Witz. “CSA didn’t outline any measures to protect Teeger and the team if such a threat truly existed. CSA had an obligation to ensure the safety of its players, yet it failed to act appropriately.”

Witz therefore emphasises that “CSA hasn’t been forthright with the South African public. The Teeger decision followed a visit from the now disgraced and arrested Minister of Sport Zizi Kodwa.”

In January, CFI’s legal team requested a full record of CSA’s decision-making process, including meeting minutes regarding Teeger’s removal from the captaincy, which CSA is legally obliged to provide. To date, CSA hasn’t complied. “As a public body responsible for the welfare of cricket in South Africa, CSA is obligated to act within the law and uphold the constitutional rights of all South Africans. CSA has failed in this duty,” says Witz.

Now, CFI’s affidavit states that “CFI seeks an order declaring the CSA decision to have been unlawful and invalid, and an order reviewing and setting the decision aside.” The affidavit notes that the decision to strip Teeger of the captaincy was probably “the result of political pressure from government on CSA at a time when South Africa signalled its intention to prosecute Israel before the ICJ. CSA couldn’t comfortably allow the South African team to be led by a captain who supported Israel.”

The affidavit also warns that “CSA introduced a precedent into the South African world of cricket whereby important decisions can be subjected to political influence”. In addition, “Teeger continues to play cricket in South Africa. If not reviewed and set aside, the danger exists that CSA may in future exclude him from the captaincy on the same or similar grounds.”

A judgment in favour of CFI “will act as a deterrent to other sporting bodies against succumbing to political or public pressure” and encourage them “to uphold the rights of those who fall under their jurisdiction, over whom they exercise enormous power”, states the affidavit. “This is even more apparent in a sporting context, where decisions can have major consequences on sporting ambitions.”

The affidavit explains that on 9 January, Teeger’s father, James Teeger, learned that the South African Police Service (SAPS) was concerned about radical elements protesting at the U19 CWC. He was asked whether Teeger would consider stepping down as captain voluntarily. The elder Teeger advised that unless there was evidence of a security threat, there was no legitimate basis to consider it.

James Teeger then reached out to Rory Steyn, CSA’s security advisor overseeing security for the U19 CWC. Steyn responded that SAPS and private security services were prepared for protests and that there was no physical security threat to David Teeger, the rest of his team, any other team, or the tournament itself. Steyn wasn’t aware of any report highlighting security threats. Steyn said that this view was shared by the International Cricket Council’s head of security. James Teeger shared all this with Naidoo, but his son was still stripped of the captaincy.

“CSA’s decision not only humiliated Teeger, infringing on his rights and affecting his career, it violated the rights of all South Africans,” said Witz. “Lawson Naidoo and CSA must be held accountable for their actions.

“While reinstating Teeger to his former captaincy in a concluded tournament isn’t possible, we hope this case will result in a court declaration confirming that CSA acted irrationally and unlawfully,” said Witz. “This would underscore the imperative to protect all rights and the freedom of speech.”

The SA Jewish Report reached out to CSA and Naidoo for comment, but didn’t receive a response by print deadline.