Rabat – Forbes Africa has issued an analysis report, commending Morocco for delivering a world-class 2025 Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) hosting.
Forbes, however, recalled how the tournament unfolded with a dramatic turn of events after Senegal’s walk-off.
January 18 was a day every Moroccan and African will remember. It marked the final between Morocco and Senegal, which Forbes described as a “heavyweight showdown worthy of the final.”
“The match offered moments of class, but what ensued in stoppage time will be remembered for all the wrong reasons; eight minutes of added time became 3 minutes of jaw-dropping drama,” the report also said.
It recalled how only Sadio Mane’s intervention sent his side back onto the field after Pape Thiaw incited his players to leave the pitch before the final whistle.
Senegal won the game with a goal in added time. The Royal Moroccan Football Federation (FRMF) appealed the result, pointing to Senegal’s temporary walk-off and return, which, combined with the dramatic stoppage-time goal, fueled frustration among fans, and the international sports community.
CAF initially released a series of sanctions against both Morocco and Senegal, which many have seen as biased against the Senegalese team, who left the pitch and refused to resume the game in breach of Articles 82 and 84.
It was not until March 17 that the CAF Appeal Board announced that the national team had forfeited, awarding Morocco the AFCON final.
Senegal rejected the decision, taking the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS).
Forbes Africa quoted lawyer Zaeem Soofie, who acknowledged the complication over the case as Senegal could refer to Article 83, which stipulates that a referee needs to formally record a team’s absence.
He alleged that this “did not happen” in the Senegal vs Morocco game, leaving room for Senegal to appeal.
“What takes the matter from ‘questionable’ to ‘awkward’ is Morocco’s decision to continue and then appeal, but equally whether the referee erred in allowing the game to resume in the first place and whether his conduct lends itself to separate sanction from the result on the day,” the lawyer explained.
Morocco is determined that it has all the evidence backing CAF’s appeal board decision.
Fouzi Lekjaa, FRMF’s president, has responded to similar claims.
Lekjaa said Morocco is fully prepared to defend its AFCON 2025 title at the international court, insisting that both the facts and the law support this position.
“The withdrawal of the Senegal team is officially established,” he said, referring to the referee’s report and video evidence showing the moment players left the pitch.
Lekjaa also explained why Morocco continued the match after Senegal returned.
“Morocco had to accept the resumption of the game,” he said. “Refusing to continue would have exposed us to the same sanctions under the regulations.”
Morocco World News (MWN) co-founder and analyst Samir Bennis echoed several arguments, showing Morocco’s strong case in the situation in several analyses.
Bennis argued that the case is not about the refereeing decision itself but a clear regulatory breach under Article 82.
“CAS is likely to uphold CAF’s decision, as the wording of Article 82 leaves no room for interpretation or discretion. It is not for CAS to introduce distinctions where the law itself provides none,” Bennis said in a recent X post.
Bennis also recalled the careful reading of both the applicable law and the facts surrounding the final showing Morocco having a significantly more robust case than Senegal.
“CAS will be tasked with determining whether the CAF Appeals Committee correctly applied its regulatory framework. In this instance, the Committee appears to have done precisely that by strictly applying Article 82, which provides for automatic sanctions against any team that withdraws from the field of play without the referee’s authorization or refuses to continue the match, both of which apply to Senegal,” he argued.
He also recalled the well-established principle ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus (“where the law does not distinguish, we must not distinguish”), emphasizing that “CAS is likely to uphold CAF’s decision, as the wording of Article 82 leaves no room for interpretation or discretion. It is not for CAS to introduce distinctions where the law itself provides none. “
He concluded that Senegal “appears to be aware of this reality. This likely explains its tendency to shift the debate away from legal arguments and toward political narratives, particularly through allegations of corruption. “
