Faz records contradict own ruling as lusaka Tigers correspondence confirms lombe’s tenure

Faz records contradict own ruling as lusaka Tigers correspondence confirms lombe’s tenure

The Football Association of Zambia (FAZ) finds itself in a credibility crisis as new evidence presented by Mumbo Lombe, a disqualified FAZ presidential aspirant, directly contradicts the association’s own ruling regarding his eligibility. FAZ had earlier ruled that Lombe did not meet the required five years of football administration experience, but official records now prove otherwise.

Appearing on Crown TV, Lombe confirmed that he has formally appealed FAZ’s decision, stating that his leadership credentials far exceed the minimum experience threshold required to contest for the presidency. He criticized FAZ’s assessment methodology, arguing that the association ignored critical years of service and misrepresented his administrative record.

At the heart of the controversy is official documentation from Lusaka Tigers FC, where Lombe has served in a leadership role. He presented correspondence and AGM minutes from 2019 and 2021, in which the club formally notified FAZ of its office bearers. These documents clearly confirm his leadership roles, which were structured in two-year terms a system that directly refutes FAZ’s claim that he lacked the necessary experience.

Lombe highlighted a critical error in FAZ’s interpretation of his tenure. Instead of calculating his years in office, FAZ wrongly assessed his eligibility based on football seasons, leading to a misleading conclusion that disqualified him from the race. In response, Lombe laid out a detailed timeline of his leadership at Lusaka Tigers:

• 2019: Leadership role officially confirmed
• 2020: Continued leadership at the club
• 2021: Reconfirmed in office as per AGM records
• 2022: Continued service in club leadership
• 2023: Further proof of administrative role
• 2024: Ongoing leadership role this year
• 2025: Active leadership confirmed for the current year

By presenting documented proof of his tenure, Lombe debunked FAZ’s ruling, questioning the association’s motives in interpreting his eligibility through a football season framework rather than established administrative terms.

Lombe further provided membership cards and supporting documents that FAZ failed to acknowledge, reinforcing his case that eligibility criteria cannot be changed retroactively. His appeal raises serious questions about whether FAZ is shifting the goalposts to selectively bar candidates from contesting.

With his appeal now in motion, Lombe is awaiting FAZ’s response whether the association will correct its oversight and recognize his years of service, or if his disqualification will stand despite clear contradictions in FAZ’s own records.

The unfolding controversy has cast doubt on FAZ’s transparency in handling electoral matters, raising concerns among football stakeholders about the integrity of the electoral process and fairness in leadership selection within the country’s football governing body.