However, his tenure abruptly ended following the dissolution of the GFA in the aftermath of the exposé, which was led by investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas in 2018.
The Number 12 exposé fingered several officials and referees and led to the sanctioning of many of the fingered persons.
GFA Ethics Committee dismisses case against Ibrahim Sannie Daara https://t.co/QMxRoNKp2A
— Ghana Football Association (@ghanafaofficial) May 27, 2022
This led to the resignation of Nyantakyi as GFA President, as well as losing his positions as FIFA Council Member and 1st Vice President of CAF.
He was subsequently handed a lifetime ban and fined 500,000 Swiss Francs by FIFA in the aftermath of the exposé.
Nyantakyi was also charged with conspiracy to commit fraud, fraud and corruption by a public officer, although he was later granted bail with some sureties.
Meanwhile, Sannie was also alleged to have been offered and accepted money from agents of Tiger Eye PI, contrary to Article 20.1(b) of the GFA Code of Ethics following the airing of the Number 12 Documentary, which purported to expose corruption in football in Ghana.
In a statement released on Friday, though, the Ethics Committee of the GFA, which is chaired by Phyllis M. Christian, cleared Sannie of any wrong doing.
“The Ethics Committee concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegation of acts of bribery and corruption on the part of Mr. Ibrahim Sannie Daara,” a section of the statement said.
“Following this, the video evidence showed that there was no attempt by Sannie Daara to collect the offered envelope. In both edited and unedited videos Mr Daara was clearly seen to make a hands-off gesture and had declined to take the envelope as offered.
“While the voice-over in the edited Documentary indicated that Mr Daara had directed that the money be given to an acquaintance of his, the EC found no evidence to support this claim. There was no evidence of the person who purportedly collected the monies on behalf of Mr Daara as proffered in the Documentary or provided to the Investigatory Chamber to tip the scales in favour of the accusation.In the opinion of the Ethics Committee, to go by the voice-over alone, would have been to speculate on hypotheticals.
“Therefore, the Committee assessed the evidence presented in the two videos, alongside the transcript, by viewing, listening and discerning the points of variation to discount or validate the assertion made by the voice-over,” the statement added.
