George Lebese case were Chiefs right to play him?

WHEN is a sportsman considered damaging to a brand?

I ask this because, as he resurfaced last weekend following days of haggling with authorities over an assault charge, some in our midst argued George Lebese should never have been allowed to wear the Kaizer Chiefs jersey until his travails were over.

Lebese faces an assault charge following what his club said was “an incident ” with his girlfriend and, although he missed Chiefs ’ match against Bloemfontein Celtic, he was immediately thrown into the starting line-up days after securing a R1 000 bail in Pretoria.

The sight of him taking the field so soon – he played in Amakhosi ’ s CAF Champions League first-leg tie against Botswana ’ s Township Rollers at FNB Stadium last Saturday – triggered a debate as to whether Chiefs, in light of the “serious ” allegation that he ’ s facing – that of assaulting his girlfriend acted prudently by fielding him.

Some argued that Chiefs should have put the player on the sidelines until his legal troubles were over. Others claimed the club was showing a “middle finger ” to victims of domestic violence, and thus was not taking seriously a social scourge which in this case may have been perpetrated by a “role model ”.

–

But wouldn ’ t it set a dangerous precedent if Chiefs were to take the stance of removing Lebese from their squad on the basis of these allegations?

Do not get me wrong – woman abuse is a serious matter.

Many women and children find themselves trapped in this cycle of abuse, helpless because the authorities fail to enforce restraining orders.

Others have simply paid with their lives.

But the constitutional democracy we live in allows for the principle that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. This principle should be applicable to everyone – including Lebese.

Fielding him does not mean Chiefs are condoning whatever crime he ’ s alleged to have committed. He ’ s merely an employee at the club who must fulfil his contract. His alleged crime was committed outside the bounds of the club.

It ’ s not as though he was in camp, sneaked out and then decided to break the law. He was at his leisure.

Lebese, by the way, is not the first sportsperson to have found himself in trouble with the law. A few years ago, Benedict Vilakazi was slapped with a statutory rape charge.

It dragged on for months, but his career at Orlando Pirates did not grind to a halt.

In some instances he could be on a weekend away with the club in Durban fulfilling a fixture, and then be back in a Gauteng court on a Monday.

Ultimately, he was found not guilty.

Now imagine if Pirates had, in view of such a serious charge, stopped using his services.

This would have been a double punishment for the player, who wouldn ’ t have been able to work, and at the same time having a cloud hanging over his head. Almost every week, some local footballers find themselves in the tabloids. Recently, Oupa Manyisa, the Pirates captain, made headlines over a child he allegedly fathered, and allegedly not taking responsibility for it.

Should Manyisa have been barred from playing for Pirates until this case had been resolved, even as he disputes paternity?

It would be unfair on anyone to be prevented from working on the basis of unproven allegations. If we go this route, it would lead to mischief.

Unless a player voluntarily decides to step aside to allow the course of justice when faced with serious allegations, he should be allowed play.

The case involving Lebese could well run into months – he reappears in court on March 9, two days after the Soweto Derby.

But it would serve no purpose if Chiefs were to banish him to the sidelines until his guilt or innocence is proven, in a case which has little to do with his employers.