Which dispute?
Isn't the fact that BASSA have sanctioned that DH & Co will stay in office until "this dispute is over" a fundamental admission that "this" dispute i.e. the recent ballot is a continuance of "that" dispute i.e. that which resulted in IA in 2010.
How can the BASSA officers then possibly take a position that the current dispute is not related to the previous one when they have sanctioned their own extensions to office on the basis that it is the same disppute.
Should make an easy target for the BA legal team.
Have I missed something?