Legal Mind Unpacks Al Hilal’s Complaint Against Berkane: What’s Next in the CAF Case?
5 April 2026
Context of the dispute
The drama between Al Hilal Omdurman and Renaissance Berkane unfolds after the Sudanese club filed a complaint with the Confederation of African Football (CAF) over Hamza Mousaoui’s eligibility for the quarterfinals of the CAF Champions League. Berkane advanced to the semifinals thanks to a 1-1 draw in Morocco and a 1-0 victory in Rwanda, despite the controversy surrounding the player’s participation.
The Hilal camp contends that Mousaoui did not meet eligibility criteria due to a positive test for prohibited substances, and they have urged CAF to launch an urgent investigation into the matter.
From late March to early April, Al Hilal sent five formal communications to CAF but received no official response, prompting a strongly worded statement accusing CAF of “unacceptable administrative silence.”
Legal analysis and next steps
In light of the escalating dispute, CAF announced a hearing for Thursday, April 9, to review the complaint before the first leg of the semifinals between Royal Army (al-Jaish) and Berkane. Hilal pressed for a definitive decision before April 6 or a postponement of the match, hinting at recourse to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) if their demands were not met.
Sports-law expert Tariq Al-Alaimi, speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat’s London edition, offered a detailed legal reading. He suggested CAF is unlikely to overturn its established procedures, noting that Mousaoui and Berkane adhered to the disciplinary framework outlined by CAF’s disciplinary committee.
Al-Alaimi explained the provisional measures taken after the positive result: the player faced a temporary 30-day ban, but the president of the disciplinary committee, acting under the regulations, could suspend the provisional ban and declare any interim arrangement, effectively allowing the player to compete on the basis that no final decision had yet been issued. He argued that neither the player nor Berkane erred, given that the committee delayed hearing him, meaning the clubs benefited from the procedural grace period. Consequently, a challenge by Hilal would unlikely change the match outcome since Berkane respected CAF’s rules and the committee’s leadership holds the authority to adjust sanctions as needed.
Read also: Sharp developments in the Sudanese club’s complaint against Berkane
As the hearing looms, CAF is weighing the facts and potential consequences for the semifinal fixture between the two clubs, with the possibility of an early ruling or a postponement depending on how the case unfolds.
Additionally, a comparative note surfaced about Spain’s formal apology to Egypt over conduct, signaling broader sports-governance sensitivities that influence CAF’s decision-making process. The broader takeaway remains: CAF’s procedures are designed to be rigorous, and the outcome will hinge on the precise interpretation of eligibility rules and disciplinary timing.
In a field where statutes and on-field drama intersect, this case could set a precedent on how doping allegations and eligibility disputes are managed in African club competitions. The clock is ticking toward the April 9 hearing, with fans and clubs watching closely for clarity and closure.
Punchline time: If CAF had a travel advisor, it would schedule hearings for the same day as the flight—because apparently the only thing that flies here is the case’s momentum. Punchline two: In football, even the law sometimes needs an offside to keep the plot interesting.
