Game-On Reporter
Justice has one unforgiving demand: consistency.
The Romans called it stare decisis—the principle that similar cases should be decided in similar fashion. Courts rely on it because justice loses its credibility the moment similar offences attract different treatment without a convincing explanation.
The Premier Soccer League’s Disciplinary Committee may not be a court of law, but it dispenses justice in Zimbabwean football. It therefore has an obligation to uphold the same standard of consistency if its decisions are to command respect.
That is why this week’s ruling on the abandoned Match Day 14 fixture between Hardrock FC and Dynamos has left more questions than answers.
The committee rightly found both clubs guilty of offences ranging from crowd trouble and pitch invasion to acts of violence that ultimately forced the abandonment of the match. Hardrock was additionally found guilty of failing to provide adequate security as the home club, while Dynamos was punished for damage to the perimeter fence.
Nobody can seriously argue that sanctions were unnecessary.
The problem is not that the PSL acted.
The problem is how it acted.
For a disciplinary body that has repeatedly insisted it is committed to cleaning up Zimbabwean football, this ruling lacks the precision and consistency expected of an institution entrusted with protecting the integrity of the game.
Take the sanction ordering Hardrock to play one home match behind closed doors.
Which match?
The PSL does not say.
Hardrock’s next home fixture is against CAPS United, yet nowhere in the ruling does the committee specify whether that is the match to be played in an empty stadium. It simply orders the club to play “one home match” behind closed doors and leaves everyone guessing.
Justice should never leave room for guesswork.
Punishments are not meant to resemble riddles. They are supposed to be specific, enforceable and beyond interpretation.
More importantly, the PSL has already shown that it knows exactly how to draft such rulings.
When Herentals FC appeared before the same Disciplinary Committee in October last year following violent conduct involving club officials, there was no ambiguity whatsoever.
The committee ordered Herentals to play their next three home matches behind closed doors and went a step further by specifying that the sanctions would take effect from Matchday 32, beginning with the fixture against Yadah FC.
Simple.
Clear.
Enforceable.
Why was the same standard abandoned in the Hardrock case?
Has the committee suddenly forgotten how to communicate its own sanctions?
Or is consistency now optional?
Those questions deserve answers because justice is measured not only by punishment but by the manner in which punishment is administered.
Then there is the case of Hardrock chief executive officer Kudzanai Hove.
Videos that circulated widely after the disturbances appeared to show one of Zimbabwean football’s most senior club executives physically assaulting a Dynamos supporter during the chaos.
If that image did not damage the reputation of local football, it is difficult to imagine what would.
Football executives are supposed to restore order when emotions boil over.
They are not supposed to become part of the violence.
Yet Hove received a suspension lasting only for the remainder of the 2026 season together with a US$5 000 fine.
Again, the obvious question is: where is the consistency?
Herentals officials Paradzai Afa and Tairos Ngoma were banned for three seasons after their involvement in violent incidents. The committee justified those lengthy sanctions by pointing to repeat offending and the failure of previous punishments to deter misconduct.
Fair enough.
But if the committee believes Hove’s conduct deserved a significantly lighter sentence despite the seriousness of the findings against him and the office he occupies, then the football fraternity deserves an explanation.
Justice should never force people to speculate.
It should persuade.
Disciplinary rulings are not merely about punishing offenders. They establish standards for everyone else. Every decision sends a message to clubs, officials, supporters and players about what behaviour the PSL is prepared to tolerate.
That message becomes blurred when similar cases produce noticeably different outcomes without explanation.
The PSL deserves recognition for refusing to ignore the ugly scenes at Chahwanda. Doing nothing would have been indefensible.
But acting is only half the job.
Acting consistently is what builds credibility.
Every disciplinary committee has one priceless asset: public confidence. Lose that, and every future verdict will be questioned, regardless of how fair it may actually be.
The PSL cannot afford to create the impression that precedent matters only when it is convenient.
If stare decisis means anything, it means today’s decision must resemble yesterday’s unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.
That reason was never explained.
And until it is, this ruling will be remembered not for the fines imposed or the suspensions handed down, but for the uncomfortable questions it has left hanging over the consistency of football justice in Zimbabwe.
