Fresh evidence strengthens Morocco’s case against Senegal in AFCON title dispute at CAS

Morocco’s case in the ongoing dispute over the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) final may have gained significant momentum following the emergence of two critical details first reported by Africa.football.

The developments—a leaked match coordinator’s report and remarks attributed to a senior CAF refereeing official—appear to reinforce Morocco’s argument that the final should have been declared abandoned after Senegal’s players walked off the pitch in protest during the closing stages in Rabat.

If the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) considers these elements credible, they could play a decisive role in determining whether Senegal breached CAF regulations and whether the match should have been halted rather than extended into extra time.

The 2025 AFCON final continues to generate intense debate across African football.

Senegal initially secured what looked like a historic 1-0 victory over Morocco on January 18 after extra time. However, the match took a dramatic turn late in normal time when Senegal’s players left the field in protest after a penalty was awarded to Morocco.

Despite the disruption, the players later returned, the penalty taken by Brahim Diaz was missed, and the game proceeded to extra time, where Senegal found the breakthrough.

That apparent victory was later nullified.

CAF ruled that Senegal had forfeited the match under Articles 82 and 84, awarding Morocco a 3-0 win and the title. Senegal strongly disputed the ruling and took the matter to CAS, insisting the decision was unjust.

One of the most impactful new pieces of evidence, according to Africans. Football is a leaked report by the match’s general coordinator, Khaled Lemkecher.

The report reportedly describes Senegal’s protests as escalating significantly after the penalty decision. It further states that the players went to the dressing room, effectively “abandoning the match", while noting that only Sadio Mané briefly remained on the pitch before urging teammates to return.

This characterisation could be pivotal.

Morocco is expected to argue that the coordinator’s account reflects an official interpretation of the incident as abandonment rather than a temporary protest. Under CAF rules, such an action could justify forfeiture if players leave the field without authorisation.

If accepted, this would support Morocco’s claim that the breach had already occurred before play resumed.

A second revelation was reported by an African. Football has raised additional concerns about how the situation was managed.

During a CAF Executive Committee meeting in Dar es Salaam on February 13, referees committee chairman Olivier Safari reportedly acknowledged that standard disciplinary action was intentionally not applied.

He is quoted as saying:“Every Senegalese player who left should have been immediately cautioned upon returning to the pitch, but we gave instructions not to do so in order to preserve the match and avoid bringing it to a premature end.”

If accurate, this statement could become a central issue at CAS.

Morocco may use it to argue that match officials deviated from normal procedures and deliberately allowed the game to continue, even though the circumstances may have justified ending it.

Another key issue likely to be examined is the duration of Senegal’s protest, which reportedly lasted around 15 minutes.

Morocco is expected to maintain that such a prolonged absence constitutes grounds for abandonment under CAF regulations. In their view, the players’ eventual return does not negate the initial violation.

Both the coordinator’s report and Safari’s remarks appear to support this stance—one by describing the incident as abandonment and the other by suggesting that enforcement of the rules was intentionally softened.

Senegal, however, is unlikely to concede ground.

Their legal representatives are expected to argue that the referee never officially abandoned the match. Instead, play resumed, the penalty was taken, and the match was completed through extra time under proper authority.

This forms a crucial pillar of Senegal’s defence: the game reached its conclusion on the field and under the supervision of match officials.

They may also argue that any procedural errors fall on the officials rather than the players and that stripping them of the title after the match was completed would be unjust.

Senegal continues to assert that it remains the rightful champion from a sporting perspective.

While the newly surfaced details do not guarantee a ruling in Morocco’s favour, they significantly reinforce the structure of their argument.

The leaked report provides potential contemporaneous evidence of abandonment, while Safari’s alleged comments introduce questions about officiating consistency and decision-making.

CAS will ultimately have to determine whether the strict application of CAF regulations outweighs the fact that the match was resumed and completed.

For Morocco, the latest developments could prove decisive. For Senegal, they add another layer of complexity to an already high-stakes appeal.

What began as a dramatic football final has now evolved into a landmark legal battle, one that could influence how similar incidents are handled in the future.