Marrakech – The demonization campaign against Morocco has found a new recruit – and an unsurprising one at that. As Moroccans on the other side of the continent woke up this Friday to celebrate Eid Al-Fitr with family, mint tea, and the serene satisfaction of a rightfully restored AFCON title, South African Sports Minister Gayton McKenzie chose a different way to start his morning.
In an appearance on SABC News, he threw his country’s full weight behind Senegal’s bid to reclaim the AFCON title, pledging legal assistance and declaring with theatrical bombast: “We must not beat around the bush. Senegal are the African champions because football games are not won in the boardroom.”
View this post on Instagram
He then escalated further, casting Morocco as a continental villain: “We will not allow Morocco to continue bullying African football and the CAF’s other 53 member associations.” He offered South Africa’s “top lawyers” to assist Senegal and, for good measure, pivoted to the Women’s AFCON hosting dispute, boasting: “South Africa’s got much more than Morocco, we are a bigger country with a bigger economy and bigger stadiums. We will not be held hostage by Morocco.”
For the South African minister, Morocco is not a fellow CAF member that exercised its legal right to appeal a verdict. It is a “bully,” a hostage-taker, a force that must be contained. It is the same poisonous narrative that has been meticulously constructed since the January 18 final: Morocco as Africa’s neo-colonial overlord, pulling strings, bending institutions, dominating a continent of 54 sovereign nations through sheer menace.
It is a lazy, intellectually bankrupt narrative – and a seductive one precisely because it requires no evidence, only resentment. Cast Morocco as the culprit, and every CAF decision becomes suspect, every regulation a conspiracy, every legal outcome proof of manipulation. It is the same crude playbook used to brand Morocco “the Israel of Africa” – a grotesque and reckless analogy that cheapens the suffering of actual victims of occupation while reducing a sovereign African nation to a caricature of nefarious influence.
The comparison is not merely false; it is morally obscene. Morocco has not colonized anyone. It has hosted a continent, invested in its infrastructure, championed its causes on the world stage, and – in this case – simply asked that the rules of a football competition be applied.
Morocco forced CAF to act outside its own corrupt inheritance
As such, it may have inadvertently saved CAF’s credibility from the very legacy its critics pretend to defend. The African football governing body is hardly known for a legacy of institutional excellence. Those old or interested enough to research CAF’s recent history would be familiar with the notorious reign of Issa Hayatou’s 29-year stranglehold, the corruption conviction of his successor Ahmad Ahmad, repeated FIFA interventions, embezzlement scandals, and decades of governance so rotten that the word “CAF” itself became synonymous with dysfunction. So Morocco did not corrupt CAF. It instead forced CAF, for once, to act outside its own corrupt inheritance.
This portrayal is as intellectually dishonest as it is historically illiterate. Morocco is as African as South Africa, as African as Senegal. All 54 members of CAF stand on equal footing. The suggestion that one African country pursuing a legitimate legal appeal within the very framework available to all constitutes “bullying” is demagoguery dressed in a ministerial suit. If exercising your rights under CAF’s own statutes is bullying, then the entire regulatory architecture of African football is meaningless.
But what makes McKenzie’s intervention not merely opportunistic but spectacularly hypocritical is his own record – from just weeks ago.
In February, speaking to ESPN at the FIFA World Cup trophy tour in Cape Town, this very same minister said of Morocco: “Morocco did very well; let me tell you. You mustn’t judge Morocco by the one incident. It happens – I don’t know why people are making it so big. I’ve been watching games in England that have been stopped. It was unfortunate – no player should leave the field – but I don’t think we should take away from all the good that Morocco has done.”
Even more remarkably, when South Africa’s AFCON coach Hugo Broos made critical remarks about the atmosphere in Morocco during the tournament, McKenzie publicly rebuked his own national team coach and apologized to Morocco on his behalf. “You don’t go into a person’s country and insult them in their own country,” he said then. “Nobody should do that. It is wrong. And I want to apologize to the Moroccans on behalf of his utterances.”
The same man who apologized to Morocco in January is now calling Morocco a bully in March. The same minister who praised Morocco’s hosting and defended its reputation is now pledging lawyers to strip it of a title awarded through the strict application of CAF regulations. The contradiction is not subtle; it is whiplash.
‘The rule is the rule’
And herein lies the richest irony of all. While McKenzie grandstands and Hugo Broos’s own coach-turned-critic pivot plays out in real time, it is Broos himself – a man whose frosty relationship with Moroccan football is no secret, who has clashed with the country on more than one occasion – who delivered the most devastating rebuttal to the entire anti-Morocco circus.
“The rule is the rule. If you leave the pitch, it’s a forfeit. Point. Finished. Morocco must take this trophy,” Broos said. When even those who harbor no warmth for you confirm your rights unprompted, the debate is not merely settled – it is pronounced dead, eulogy and all.
View this post on Instagram
The ongoing campaign to paint Morocco as a malign force in African football – orchestrated through government communiqués, social media manipulation, and now ministerial interventions from foreign capitals – will not alter the legal reality. CAF applied Articles 82 and 84 of its statutes. An independent appeals body, composed of respected jurists from across the continent and chaired by a judge, rendered a decision grounded in regulation, not politics.
CAF president Patrice Motsepe himself defended the verdict in his first public remarks on Wednesday, stressing unequivocally that no African nation would receive “more privileged, more advantageous, or more favorable” treatment than another.
By doing so, the continental body pulled African football back from the edge of a catastrophic precedent – one where a team could walk off the pitch, hold a continental final hostage for 17 minutes, trigger a pitch invasion, and still walk away clutching the trophy. That is not football. That is hooliganism, thuggery, and debauchery laundered through a jersey and sold to the world as righteous protest.
Morocco, it bears remembering, felt the sting of injustice too – when the initial disciplinary commission refused to apply its own regulations. The Moroccan federation (FRMF) did not storm press conferences or cry conspiracy. It appealed, presented its case, attended hearings, and defended its position through every legal channel available – until the rules were correctly applied.
The FRMF made clear that its legal challenge was never about the scoreline. “The approach undertaken was never intended to contest the sporting performance of the teams, but solely to demand respect for the rules,” the federation stated. It had consistently pushed for one thing since the chaotic events of January 18 in Rabat: “the strict application of the regulations governing the competition.”
And even the CAS card McKenzie and his Senegalese allies are so eagerly waving may not deliver the salvation they expect. The CAF Appeals Jury’s decision is robustly anchored in Articles 82 and 84 – provisions whose language leaves vanishingly little room for reinterpretation. CAS jurisprudence consistently holds that regulatory provisions must be read to ensure practical effectiveness, not twisted into absurdity.
Senegal’s team walked off the pitch, retreated to the locker room – one player even went live on TikTok mid-match – and their own coach publicly admitted he ordered the withdrawal. These are not disputed interpretations. They are documented facts, on camera, on record. The argument that this does not constitute a withdrawal under CAF regulations requires a suspension of logic so severe it borders on fantasy. Senegal may have the right to appeal, but rights and outcomes are two very different things.
McKenzie can pledge all the lawyers Pretoria has to offer. But no amount of legal firepower can change the facts: a team walked off the pitch during a continental final, and the rules say that is a forfeit.
