Asian Weightlifting Federation abandons controversial constitution after strong resistance from members
DOHA β The Asian Weightlifting Federation (AWF) has abandoned an extensive draft of a new constitution that had caused divisions among national federations for months and, at the Special Congress on July 27, decided to retain the existing constitutional framework with only two targeted amendments. According to a report by Inside the Games, provisions were adopted to more formally include the athletes' body in the federation's governance structure and to introduce a gender-balance requirement, while the controversial draft, which also included the removal of age limits for the president, general secretary and members of the Executive Board, was withdrawn. This brought an end to the immediate constitutional crisis that emerged in May at the AWF Ordinary Congress in Gandhinagar, India, but dissatisfaction among some members over the way the entire process was conducted has not disappeared. Questions of procedural legitimacy, the powers of Congress, financial transparency and the right of national federations to participate in amendments to the federation's fundamental governing document became just as important as the content of the draft itself. The decision comes at a sensitive moment, several months before the AWF electoral congress, which is expected to be held in Qatar in December.
Only two amendments remain from the major restructuring
According to information published by Inside the Games on August 11, the Special Congress on July 27 did not approve the document prepared by the constitutional working group led by AWF vice-president Abdullah Al Jarmal. Instead, members returned to the existing constitutional framework and supplemented it with only two changes: the formal inclusion of the Athletes' Committee or Commission and a new provision on gender balance within the federation's bodies. The detailed wording of those two amendments has not yet been made public in a way that would allow a precise comparison of all articles before and after the Congress, so it is not possible to reliably state the exact quotas, the method of electing athlete representatives or the legal mechanism through which gender representation will be ensured. For that reason, it is most accurate to speak of a general strengthening of athlete representation and gender balance rather than assuming models that have not been officially confirmed. Inside the Games reports that these were precisely the two points that passed without the resistance that marked the debate over the broader draft.
The publicly available AWF constitution for the 2020β2024 period already listed an Athletesβ Commission among its commissions, whose members, according to that document, were appointed by the Executive Board. Therefore, the new wording on the formal integration of the athletes' body probably means stronger or clearer constitutional positioning rather than the creation of athlete representation from scratch; without the published final text of the adopted amendment, however, its exact scope cannot be determined more precisely. At the global level, the IWF gives its Athletes' Commission an explicit role in conveying competitors' views into federation decisions, and its representatives have seats and votes on the Executive Board. The IWF also prescribes gender balance within its own Athletes' Commission, including minimum representation of women and men. This demonstrates the direction in which international governance standards are moving, but it does not automatically mean that the AWF has adopted an identical model.
The dispute erupted at the Congress in Gandhinagar
The key conflict broke out on May 12 at the AWF Ordinary Congress held during the Asian Championships in Gandhinagar. The AWF's official report from that meeting states that the constitutional working group presented a proposal for amendments for the 2026β2030 period, after which delegates decided that, before any final adoption, the proposal should be sent to the Legal Department of the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF). The AWF stated at the time that the decision to conduct a prior legal review had been made unanimously and that the amendments could be reconsidered in Tashkent or at another future congress. This procedural step was important because IWF rules for continental federations require their constitutions and regulations to comply with the rules of the international federation. The IWF's current by-laws also state that continental federations must maintain a constitution and regulations that comply with the relevant IWF rules. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the publicly available AWF document is designated as the Constitution for the 2020β2024 period, while Inside the Games described it in its reports as the previous constitution whose intended period ended in 2024. The July decision therefore did not introduce a completely new fundamental governing document, but rather continued the existing framework with limited corrections.
After the May Congress, Inside the Games reported that opposition from delegates had been considerably stronger than could be concluded from the initial official communication. According to the outlet, several delegates opposed an attempt to adopt the new constitution immediately and insisted on a prior compliance review by the IWF. The same report stated that the IWF responded that its legal department had not yet received the AWF draft at that time, while announcing that, if submitted, it would review it against the IWF Constitution and policies. Two and a half months later, instead of returning the same package for a vote, the AWF retained the existing framework at the Special Congress and approved only two limited amendments. Such a development shows that the May blockage was more than a temporary procedural delay.
Age limits were only one part of a broader dispute
The provisions governing eligibility for leading positions attracted the most attention. Inside the Games reported in May that the proposed draft contained articles that would remove age limits for the president, general secretary and members of the Executive Board and allow unlimited terms in key positions. However, in documents and correspondence from national federations cited by the outlet, criticism did not stop at candidates' ages. Rules concerning who may propose constitutional changes, how often Congress may amend the constitution, how large a role the Executive Board would have and how often financial reports would be submitted to members were also disputed. The Singapore Weightlifting Federation, whose president is Tom Liaw, argued that members' proposals had been ignored and questioned the legal basis of the working group that drafted the document.
According to documents reported by Inside the Games, the Singapore federation referred to a provision in the existing AWF constitution granting members the right to propose amendments to the fundamental governing document and argued that the description of the Executive Board's powers did not grant the same type of authority to an informal working group. Critics also stated that the proposed system could reduce the role of the annual Congress, limit the frequency of constitutional amendments and shift part of financial reporting toward the four-year electoral cycle. These were politically sensitive points because they concern not only the technical drafting of rules but also the distribution of power between the federation's leadership and its national members. Inside the Games reported that some members disputed the leadership's assertion that their proposals had arrived after the deadline, stating that they possessed time-stamped evidence of timely submission. Those claims have not been independently confirmed by publicly available AWF minutes, so they should be regarded as allegations by dissatisfied federations rather than conclusively established facts.
An additional layer of complexity comes from the fact that the publicly available AWF constitution for the 2020β2024 period already states in Article 5.1.6 that the number of consecutive terms held by an individual is not limited, subject to the requirement to stand for election again at each election. For that reason, the disputed draft cannot be reduced to a simple story about introducing unlimited terms where they had not previously existed. According to reports on the draft, the broader problem involved a combination of age requirements, nomination rules, the position of Congress and oversight mechanisms. Because the complete final text of the withdrawn draft was not published together with a comparative table of changes, individual differences between the old and proposed articles should be described cautiously. What has been confirmed is that the draft generated sufficiently strong opposition that it did not pass in May and was ultimately abandoned in July.
Members are still seeking answers about how the process was conducted
The withdrawal of the draft resolved the immediate voting problem, but it did not automatically resolve the dispute over the process. In August, Inside the Games, citing sources from several national federations, reported that official letters containing objections had allegedly gone unanswered and that alternative proposals from members were not included in the final process in the way their submitters had expected. Some critics described such an approach as incompatible with the principles of transparency, consultation and unity that the AWF publicly emphasizes. On its official website, the federation itself lists among its objectives the governance of Asian weightlifting in accordance with democracy, good governance and transparency. For that reason, restoring trust will depend not only on the final rules but also on how future amendments are prepared, published and explained to members.
The AWF is a continental body that, according to its own data, brings together 45 national federations and is recognized by the IWF and the Olympic Council of Asia as the governing organization for weightlifting in Asia. Its decisions therefore have a direct impact on a large number of the sport's most successful national programs, on the organization of continental championships and on the relationship between Asian federations and international rules. The IWF's current constitution lists democracy, transparency, accountability, fair play, sportsmanship and clean sport as fundamental governance principles. For continental federations, the IWF by-laws also establish an explicit obligation to ensure that their own constitutions and regulations comply with the international federation's rules. In that context, the procedural dispute within the AWF is not merely an internal administrative debate but an issue that may affect the legitimacy of the organization's future decisions.
Electoral congress in Qatar increases the importance of constitutional compromise
The next major test will be the AWF electoral congress planned for December 2026. The AWF officially announced in May that Qatar had been awarded hosting rights, while Singapore was designated as the reserve host in case of unforeseen circumstances. The Qatar Olympic Committee stated that the electoral assembly is expected to be held alongside the Qatar International Weightlifting Cup, a competition scheduled from December 7 to 17. The congress will determine the federation's leadership for the new cycle, which means that the rules governing nominations, the structure of the Executive Board and the representation of different groups are not abstract questions. Retaining the existing framework with limited amendments practically reduces the risk of applying a completely new and still disputed constitutional system immediately before the elections.
The current AWF leadership is headed by president Mohammed Yousef Al Mana of Qatar, while Mohammed Ahmed Al Harbi of Saudi Arabia is the general secretary. The AWF's first vice-president is Mohammed Hassan Jalood of Iraq, who simultaneously serves as president of the IWF. Precisely because of the overlap between continental and global functions, the issue of rule compliance and the perception of independent oversight is particularly sensitive. The constitutional dispute ahead of the elections therefore concerns not only the legal text but also members' confidence that the electoral process will be predictable, transparent and conducted under rules known sufficiently early to all candidates and federations. The Special Congress reduced the number of unresolved issues, but did not eliminate them completely.
The constitutional debate is taking place as the Los Angeles 2028 cycle begins
The timing of the decision is additionally symbolic because, according to the official qualification system published by the AWF, the Olympic qualification period in weightlifting for the Los Angeles 2028 Games began on July 27, 2026. The qualification cycle will run until May 7, 2028, and the sport will feature 12 Olympic events in Los Angeles, with six men's and six women's categories. While athletes and national federations focus on the new Olympic cycle, the continental organization must simultaneously stabilize its own governance framework. In such a situation, a prolonged constitutional dispute could divert attention from competitive, development and anti-doping priorities. The decision to abandon the large package therefore gives the AWF room to enter the electoral cycle with rules that are more familiar to its members, while at the same time increasing expectations that the next reform attempt will be more open and better documented.
At this point, there is no officially confirmed indication that the withdrawn draft will reappear in the same form. Available information suggests that the document has been abandoned, while the two adopted amendments remain as a limited compromise after months of conflict. For national federations, a key issue will be whether the AWF publishes the complete consolidated text of the constitution with the new provisions and clear implementation rules before the December elections. Such publication would allow comparison with IWF requirements and reduce the scope for new procedural interpretations. Following the events in Gandhinagar and the Special Congress on July 27, the transparency of the next steps will show whether the dispute has truly been closed or merely postponed until the next debate over the federation's governance.
Sources:
- Inside the Games β report of August 11, 2026, on the decision of the Special Congress and the withdrawal of the controversial draft (link)
- Inside the Games β report of May 11, 2026, on objections from national federations, the working group and the content of the draft (link)
- Inside the Games β report of May 21, 2026, on the blocking of the draft's adoption in Gandhinagar and the requested IWF review (link)
- Asian Weightlifting Federation β official report from the Ordinary Congress on May 12, 2026, in Gandhinagar (link)
- Asian Weightlifting Federation β AWF Constitution for the 2020β2024 period, used to verify electoral rules and the structure of commissions (link)
- International Weightlifting Federation β current by-laws and obligations of continental federations under IWF rules (link)
- International Weightlifting Federation β IWF constitutional governance principles and the position of the Athletes' Commission (link)
- Qatar Olympic Committee β information on hosting the AWF electoral congress in Qatar in December 2026 (link)
- Asian Weightlifting Federation β official overview of AWF objectives, status and membership (link)
- Asian Weightlifting Federation β official list of leadership and Executive Board members (link)
- Asian Weightlifting Federation β official overview of the qualification system for the Los Angeles 2028 Olympic cycle (link)