DZWatch Exclusive: Sudanese club Al-Hilal has formally lodged a complaint with the Confederation of African Football (CAF) following their recent match against MC Alger in Kigali. The complaint centers around alleged acts of aggression by supporters of the Algerian club.
In an official statement released by Al-Hilal’s management, the club condemned what they described as disruptive behavior in and around the stadium. The Sudanese side is calling on CAF to ensure the safety and security of their players and staff in future matches. The statement emphasizes the need for CAF to strictly enforce its regulations to prevent similar incidents from recurring, directly accusing some MC Alger fans of instigating trouble.
The statement further asserts that the alleged actions are inconsistent with sporting values and that Al-Hilal rejects all forms of violence, portraying their delegation as victims of unwarranted aggression. However, the statement omits key details regarding an opposing account of events.
Notably, Al-Hilal’s statement fails to address the match commissioner’s report, which reportedly holds Al-Hilal’s Burundian player, John Claude, responsible for provoking the MC Alger bench immediately after the final whistle. This alleged provocation, occurring in a tense atmosphere following a defeat for the Algerian team, is said to have sparked the angry reactions. Al-Hilal’s management chose to overlook these crucial details, instead presenting themselves as innocent victims.
DZWatch has learned that the match commissioner’s report contradicts Al-Hilal’s claims. The situation raises questions about the club’s demand for protection while allegedly failing to address the actions of their own player. The narrative adopted by Al-Hilal attempts to shift blame, ignoring the principle that protection begins with adherence to sportsmanship and that players are responsible for their conduct both on and off the field.
If Al-Hilal is indeed calling for the application of regulations, fairness dictates that their player’s alleged provocation should be investigated before addressing the protection of their delegation. CAF is expected to carefully review all evidence before making a determination.
