By Andrew Warshaw in St Paulo
June 12 – Michael Garcia, the American lawyer who has become the central figure in the entire debate into corruption allegations swirling around FIFA, says he has left no stone unturned in his two-year probe to weed out any wrongdoing in the 2018 and 2022 World Cup bid process.
FIFA delegates and media alike locked on to every one of Garcia’s words as the FIFA ethics committee prosecutor, a few days after completing his lengthy inquiries, made a rare public appearance at the FIFA Congress in Sao Paulo and buried more than a few myths about his much-publicised investigation.
With Qatar 2022 officials in the audience, Garcia revealed he already had access to the “vast majority” of documents that have formed the basis of the explosive new allegations the Sunday Times has published over the past two weekends into the conduct of Qatar’s former Asian football boss Mohamed bin Hammam.
The paper has reported that a string of payments were made to FIFA officials, many from Africa, authorised by Bin Hammam allegedly in order to boost support for Qatar’s 2022 World Cup bid. Qatar vehemently deny any wrongdoing and insist bin Hammam played no part in their campaign.
Although as expected he did not divulge any of his report’s contents since it will be forwarded next month to the ethics committee’s adjudicatory panel which will then decide whether to recommend any sanctions, Garcia said enough to make it clear he has done a thorough job after being commissioned by FIFA as part of its reform programme.
This website, along with two other media organisations, revealed a few weeks ago that there had been a failed plot within FIFA’s old guard to halt Garcia’s probe, partly because those concerned didn’t apparently appreciate his methods of quizzing them face to face. But he insisted he and his team had not been in any way intrusive.
“Contrary to some reports, ethics committee investigators do not swoop in unannounced for surprise interviews,” Garcia told Congress. “We always request meetings in advance, we allow anyone who meets with us to be accompanied by their legal council and we harbour no prejudice against witnesses who decide to do that.
“We accommodate schedules, provide interpreters and extend deadlines whenever reasonable and possible. What is required in return – what the code of ethics requires – is full co-operation in establishing the facts, including complete and truthful answers to questions.
“There have been a lot of questions and even misperceptions about the work of the investigatory chamber of the FIFA ethics committee. The FIFA code of ethics requires all football officials – essentially everyone who has the privilege of working in football – to co-operate with ethics committee investigations and it makes real penalties available against those who fail to fulfil this obligation.”
Whether that was a veiled threat at former FIFA exco member and German football legend Frank Beckenbauer, one of those who voted in 2010 and who told a German newspaper he had declined to talk to Garcia, was unclear.
But Garcia did say he has spoken to representatives of all nine bidding nations for 2018 and 2022 and that he also spoke, or attempted to speak, with all members of the FIFA executive committee who voted though several have since resigned or been kicked out since then.
Garcia disclosed information had come to him via a number of sources including a whistleblower hotline, the media, football officials and private citizens.
The fact that he completed his report on Monday prompted headlines that he and his team would not be able to take the Sunday Times revelations into account. This, he said, was far from the case.
“Recently there have been assertions about what material I will or will not consider,” said Garcia. “No one should assume what information we have or do not have – we have reviewed the documents and the vast majority has been available to us for some time, well before the recent wave of news reports.”
“These will continue to be examined and reviewed and we have gone to what appears to be original source of that data and are confident we will have full access to that before issuing any final report. What we cannot and will not do is postpone indefinitely completing our work because someone, somewhere will publish something else.
“It is a process we believe will deliver a report that is comprehensive and fair to all parties.”
Contact the writer of this story at moc.l1734851865labto1734851865ofdlr1734851865owedi1734851865sni@w1734851865ahsra1734851865w.wer1734851865dna1734851865