|HOME | SPORTS | NEWS|
|May 25, 2000||
As regards allegation ONE on its own, there is insufficient evidence about the last Test match. All the evidence that is available is primarily opinion and based on personal suspicion more than anything. Counter to this opinion there is the opinion of other commentators on the match who said that Pakistan did not bowl badly at all, it was just that New Zealand batted out of their skins.
However, in the matter of the fifth one-day match, also at Christchurch, there is stronger evidence. The Commission is minded to believe Rashid Latif's testimony. However, Rashid's testimony is unsupported by any other evidence. Three other people who Rashid said were in the room when an offer was made to him have denied Rashid's statement. Therefore against four denials (Malik plus these three), this commission finds it difficult to convict Salim Malik on Rashid Latif's testimony alone.
Looking at the match can one say that the match was fixed? There is a chance that it was. But, that it was, cannot be said to the requisite standard of proof. The performance of the team was sub-par. There were misfields and there were wides. The batting collapsed. But then again that is the Pakistan team. The fact is that looking at the match one cannot reach any conclusion with certainty that match was fixed, though much can be said otherwise.
As regards allegation TWO alone, the Singer Trophy, the statement of Saleem Pervez has a lot of weight. It is acknowledged by many e.g. Rashid Latif that he was seen mixing with the players. Pervez is named as a gambler on the Ehtesaab Bureau report too. He has categorically stated that he had paid Salim Malik and Mushtaq Ahmad a sum of US$ 100,000 in Sri Lanka for the match of Pakistan against Australia in September, 1994 in Singer Trophy. It is, no doubt, true and admitted by Saleem Pervez that he has some criminal record and that had even been involved in a murder case but that does not mean that the man is lying. Cross-examination of Saleem Pervez however has cast some doubt on the testimony as there appear to be some discrepancies as to where the match was fixed and who carried the money. However, this commission on the whole believes Salim Pervez.
Corroboration of Salim Pervez can be sought from Mr. Aftab Butt, the person Pervez says he allegedly took with him to deliver the money. A statement from Aftab Butt could not be taken. He is being chased up. Allegation TWO, therefore stands for the time being. It will be addressed in the supplementary report that will shortly follow this Report.
As regards allegation THREE alone, having carefully gone through the statements of Mark Waugh and Shane Warne, this Commission comes to the conclusion that they have not fabricated their statements against Salim Malik. The cross-examination by the counsels has not been able to break the testimony that had been made by these players in Australia. Their version of events in believable. The 'John' factor does not do too much damage to Warne and Waugh's credibility. It does not absolve Salim Malik of the charges as the Australians made the Report to their authorities soon enough. That the news surfaced much later is not suspicious as Malik's counsel suggested. This commission is of the same opinion as Javed Burki when he says that the only reason the Australians leaked the allegations to the press was that Rashid Latif had already let the cat out of the bag.
This commission finds Salim Malik guilty of attempting to fix the Test-match that Shane Warne has stated Malik made him and Tim May an offer for. Shane Warne's testimony has withstood cross-examination and Tim May has indirectly corroborated that the offer was made, or at least directly corroborated that it was rejected on his behalf when Warne called Malik from their room.
Further, as regards the offer for the Rawalpindi One-day match, this Commission finds there to be sufficient evidence to convict Salim Malik of match-fixing. Salim Malik made an offer to Mark Waugh according to Waugh. Warne overheard this. Waugh accuses, Warne corroborates. This Commission therefore holds Malik guilty of attempting to fix the First Test Match.
As regards allegation FOUR, batting first in the finals and including Akram Raza instead of Kabir Khan, the tour report supports Salim Malik in that all of this is the Captain's prerogative. Intikhab Alam says that the team supported Salim Malik. While, it is clear that all was not well on that tour. However, in absence of stronger evidence, this Commission cannot hold that those finals were fixed.
Generally, there have been a lot of general allegations against Malik. Everyone seems to name him as the main culprit in match-fixing. Imran Khan, Javed Miandad, his own coaches, managers, and fellow players. Most crucially, Malik's own vice-captain quit and alleged match-fixing against him. Rashid Latif's allegation are very weighty against Malik. The cheques however are not of great probative value as they could have been given to Malik for any number of reasons. However, if all the allegations are taken together, in totality, Malik is clearly guilty for the lesser level of punishments too, of bringing the name of the team into disrepute. The lesser punishments would have been applied to Malik if he had not already been convicted at the higher level.
So, in light of the presence of evidence to support allegation THREE, this Commission recommends that a life ban be imposed on Salim Malik and he be not allowed to play cricket at any level, whether for Pakistan or at the domestic level. He should not be allowed to even associate himself with any cricketing affairs as he may be able to influence the new generation. This includes coaching, managerial offices and selection committees. It is also recommended that other suitable action whether in the form of criminal proceedings or otherwise be taken against Salim Malik. Moreover, an account of his finances needs to be taken and he should be fined Rs. 10 lac.
Former Pakistan player Saleem Pervez appeared before the Commission of Inquiry and stated that he had paid Mushtaq Ahmed (and Salim Malik) a sum of US$ 100,000. This was for fixing a match in Sri Lanka against Australia for the Singer Trophy in 1994.
The scorecard for that Singer Trophy match shows that Mushtaq Ahmed gave away 34 runs in 10 overs, took two wickets giving away four wides. He remained not out scoring 2 off 3 balls before the 50 overs were completed. (Full scorecard in appendix:)
It was interesting that when Mushtaq Ahmed appeared before this commission, he seemed to know already which match we were going to ask him about. And he blurted out, 'I was OK in that match.'
Former Pakistan team coach Javed Miandad said in his statement that Mushtaq had confessed to him that he had a one time involvement in match-fixing.
Mr. Javed Burki has also stated that Mushtaq and Malik were often seen at a Khalid Gitty's, a bookie's residence. He added that Mr. Naeem Gulzar can confirm this. However, when Mr. Gulzar appeared he named Malik and Ijaz as likely culprits in match-fixing but stated he did not have any proof. He did not deny or confirm Mr. Burki's allegations.
FINDINGS, REASONS & RECOMMENDATIONS:
While this Commission is minded to accept the testimony of Saleem Pervez after he managed to withstand cross-examination (taking note of the inconsistencies raised by Mr. Azmat Saeed in Pervez's statements), it is difficult to believe after looking at Mushtaq's figures, that he was trying to throw away the match. His performance in the context of the match was better than most. If one were to compare this with the performance of others then it appears difficult to hold that Mushtaq was involved in match-fixing, not giving his best. The two wickets he took were of the Waugh twins. This raises some doubt in my mind that Mushtaq was involved. There is, of course, a possibility that if Mushtaq was involved in match-fixing, he could well have used someone else to bowl or bat badly. However, there is no evidence to this effect.
There is of course as earlier mentioned one source of strong corroboration that may be checked for support of Saleem Pervez's testimony and that is Mr. Aftab Butt. Mr. Butt will be examined soon and a supplementary report will be made following up shortly on the heels of this Report.
While this Commission cannot for the time being make a finding of guilt to the requisite standard because, in fairness to Musthaq, Mr. Butt needs to be examined, there are sufficient grounds to cast strong doubt on Mushtaq Ahmad. He has brought the name of the Pakistan team into disrepute with inter alia associating with gamblers. This Commission therefore recommends that Mushtaq Ahmed be censured, kept under close watch and be not given any office of responsibility (selection or captaincy) in the team or on the board. Furthermore, he should be fined Rs. 3 lac.
Final findings against Mushtaq on the charge of match-fixing will soon follow in the Supplementary statement.
Wasim Akram has been the captain of the Pakistan team in several stints from 1993 till the present.
ALLEGATION ONE: INVOLVEMENT IN ATTEMPTING TO FIX THE CHRISTCHURCH MATCH
In his statement before this commission of inquiry Ata-ur-Rehman had alleged that Wasim Akram had paid him a sum of Rs 100,000 to bowl badly in a match in New Zealand, in Christchurch in 1993-94. He said Akram had in fact promised him Rs 200,000 but paid him half the amount promising to pay the rest later if Ata continued to cooperate. He said Akram had told him that Ijaz Ahmed had fixed the game with Zafar Alias Jojo in Pakistan.
Ata-ur-Rehman subsequently again appeared before the Commission and stated that while he was in Newcastle, England, Wasim Akram had asked him to see his solicitors and sign a new affidavit (in response to Aamir Sohail's affidavit). This affidavit was contradictory to the previous one. He says he signed this second affidavit under coercion and threats from Wasim Akram that he has a lot of contacts in Pakistan and would get him fixed if he did not give the second affidavit. Wasim Akram provided a ticket to Ata to travel to London. The ticket was produced and the ticket, according to Ata, was charged to Akram's credit card. Counsel for Wasim Akram has accepted that the ticket was on Akram's credit card.
Ata-ur-Rehman was subsequently recalled on the request of Wasim Akram for cross-examination. He appeared before the Commission on the 3rd of September, 1999. While being subjected to cross examination he did a complete about-turn and went back on the earlier statement. He categorically stated that he had earlier given a false statement in which he had involved Wasim Akram. He said he had made the said statement under some misunderstanding. He was immediately put on ECL (Exit Control List) and subsequently issued with a notice for perjury.
Later, when Ata-ur-Rehman appeared before this Commission again, to be issued a show-cause notice for perjury, he stated that he had in fact been induced by Aamir Sohail to make a statement against Wasim Akram and that the affidavit was also given at his instance. He however reiterated that Wasim Akram had supplied him with a ticket for travelling from Newcastle to London and that that ticket was charged to Wasim Akram's credit card.
In view of Ata-ur-Rehman's volte-face, corroboration was sought in support of his earlier or later affidavit. In support of the earlier affidavit, three sources presented themselves:
One was Imran Khan. Imran Khan had earlier stated in his statement that the only knowledge he had of match-fixing was of when Ata had told him that Wasim had paid him to throw the Christchurch match. Ata told him this after the news about the first affidavit had broken in the papers. Ata accepted this too.
The second source of corroboration was Rashid Latif. Mr. Latif states in this Christchurch match Wasim Akram had declared himself unfit before the Pakistanis took the field. He was holding his shoulder as if in pain even before the first ball was bowled. He only bowled six overs and did not even complete his spell. According to Latif, no balls and wides were bowled deliberately by Wasim Akram and on at least two occasions the balls were bowled so wide that the wicket keeper could not get to it and the opposition got eight wides at a crucial time in the game. These runs were given away at a time when the weather was turning nasty and with rain imminent the Pakistani bowlers could have saved the match but they were bowling in such a hurry that the run rate was accelerated and NZ won the game. In one-day cricket bowlers never bowl bouncers as they can give away too many runs but the Pakistani bowlers deliberately bowled bouncers. In Rashid's opinion, as he had a clear view from his place behind the stumps, Wasim (and Salim Malik) were the main culprits for Pakistan's loss.
The scorecard shows that the Pakistani bowlers gave away 25 extras. (lb8, w14, nb3). Twenty five extras means not only 25 bonus runs for the opposition but 17 no balls and wides total means they had a gift of 17 extra deliveries to score runs off. (The detailed scorecard is attached)
The third source was the Rashid Latif and Ata conversation on tape. Ata has denied that the voice on the tape was his.
Still on the Christchurch match, Pakistan coach Intikhab Alam when asked in court, said that Akram had been fit for that game. However, he stated that at the time the match did not appear to his to have been fixed.
Rashid Latif on Akram's injury, said that Akram was feigning injury as he had been rubbing his shoulder even prior to the start of the New Zealand batting.
ALLEGATION TWO: WITHDRAWAL FROM THE WORLD CUP 1996 QUARTERFINAL.
In the Bangalore quarter final against India during the 1996 World Cup, Wasim Akram decided at the last minute not to play the match. This according to vice-captain Aamir Sohail was fatal to the outcome of the game as he was asked to captain the side five minutes before the toss.
In cross examination Wasim Akram said he was injured. In his statement before this honorable court strike bowler Waqar Younis said that it was not the normal practice for injured players to travel with the team.
Team physiotherapist Dan Keisel in his statement in court said that Wasim was allowed to travel to Bangalore because the injury was minor. He said when he examined him in Bangalore the day before the match Wasim was sure that he would be fit to play, keeping in view the importance of the game.
Aamir Sohail stated that Wasim had told him he was fit and will be playing even the night before. But at the last instant on the day of the match, he said he could not play.
ALLEGATION THREE: TAMPERING WITH THE BATTING ORDER TO FIX MATCHES IN THE INDEPENDENCE CUP AND AT SHARJAH
Former captain Majid Khan, ex-Chief Executive of the Pakistan Cricket Board has said that during the 1997 Independence Cup in Lahore Wasim Akram as captain deliberately did not send in form players to bat at crucial times and consistently promoted himself in the batting order. When confronted with this Wasim, admitted his mistake and, although he was the captain, said that he did not know who the in form players were. A month later in a Sharjah tournament, the Singer Champions Trophy 1997-98, Wasim repeated the same mistake despite being admonished by the coach Haroon Rasheed and the Chief Executive, Majid Khan. Majid says that when he went to Sharjah briefly and spoke to the coach Haroon Rasheed, his reply was that the team could not win matches if the captain did not want to win them.
Wasim Akram had consistently promoted himself in the batting order above the in form players thereby making the target difficult for Pakistan to achieve. He persisted in sending out of form batsmen in the top order positions. He again went above Azhar Mahmood and in an important Sharjah game scored 4 off 19 balls and Pakistan lost the match despite being in a comfortable position. (Detailed score card is attached)
ALLEGATION FOUR: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Aaqib Javed in his statement said that Wasim Akram had threatened to keep him out of the team so long as he was captain. This transpired after Aaqib had been instructed to contact Saleem Pervez, accept a sum of Rs 40 lacs and a vehicle in order to join the team the Sri Lanka. Aaqib said he declined after which Akram said Aaqib would never play. Aaqib did not play for Pakistan till Wasim Akram was not available for the captaincy.
In his statement Aaqib named Malik and Akram as two of the main persons of match-fixing.
Former captain Javed Miandad said that during his captaincy he had been informed by Idress (Cadbury), who is the brother of alleged bookie Hanif Cadbury, that Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis and another player whose name he could not remember was on his brother's books.
In the Singer Trophy final, Rashid also mentions that Wasim Akram was reprimanded by coach Intikhab Alam for using his mobile phone in the dressing room when mobiles were not to be switched on as per the rules of the Pakistan Cricket Board. He stated that he had heard Wasim say of a match that 'he did not know' implying that Wasim did not know whether that match was fixed or not.
The other players who had mobile phones, a time when they were not so common, were Malik and Younis. Intikhab says the Pakistan Cricket Board management had arrived at the conclusion a long time ago that these mobiles were used by players to maintain contact with the bookies.
FINDINGS, REASONS & RECOMMENDATIONS.
The first allegation was prima facie the strongest against Wasim Akram. However, having considered the entire evidence, on record, this commission has come to the conclusion that Ata-ur-Rehman in view of his retraction from his earlier statement and various subsequent statements cannot be believed with any degree of certainty. His statement cannot be made the basis of holding Wasim Akram guilty of the offence of match-fixing. Ata's first story was that compelling that if Ata-ur-Rehman had not retracted from his earlier statement and if his statement had stood the test of cross-examination, then perhaps this commission might have held Wasim Akram guilty of fixing the Christchurch one-day match. But in the present scenario, this is not possible.
The three possible sources of corroboration that seemed have offered themselves too are too weak to prove the charge or support one of Ata's stories. The sources are as follows:
What Ata told Imran Khan about Wasim making Ata an offer was not contemporaneous; it was not after the New Zealand tour. Ata told Imran Khan after the news broke in the papers. Ata could well have been lying to Imran Khan after the news broke in the papers to support his story, to save face, or for any number of reasons.
Rashid Latif's statement against Wasim Akram. It is just his personal opinion. While this Commission gives Rashid Latif's testimony a lot of weight generally, in this instance the facts do not really support his assertions. 6.3 overs for 17 runs may be magnificent bowling (even in the context of a low scoring match.) Moreover, the Commission has to take into consideration Rashid's state of mind during that match. Rashid had been just offered money by the Captain. He may well have been a tad paranoid. This possibility of paranoia must be taken account of.
The tape of the conversation between Ata-ur-Rehman and Rashid Latif cannot provide good, independent corroboration as Ata once more may well have been lying to Rashid Latif. Further, for the reasons earlier stated the tapes cannot be taken as anything other than weak corroboration.
Use of a cellular phone and a reprimand for it cannot result in guilt. A phone is not an incriminating object.
As regards the sub-allegation that Akram was feigning injury, it can be said that there is no proof either way. Rashid and Intikhab only give personal opinions. Akram could well have injured himself during the Pakistan inning. Even Wisden seemed to note that the injury was authentic.
Most crucially, as regards allegation one, the Aamir Sohail factor was introduced into the matters by Ata-ur-Rehman, the 'Aamir Sohail factor' being the allegation that Aamir Sohail induced Ata to make the statement against Wasim Akram. While this commission is minded to disbelieve anything Ata-ur-Rehman says in light of the number of times he has changed his statement, it must still consider whether Aamir Sohail could have influenced Ata's into making a false first affidavit. Even if it appears unlikely, there is a chance that Aamir Sohail did. This introduces some doubt in my mind about Ata's first affidavit.
Aamir Sohail by his subsequent actions ironically seems to clear Wasim Akram. When Sohail later became the captain of the Pakistan team, he played Wasim under him. Even recently Sohail agreed to play under the man he said is likely to be crooked. In all of this Aamir Sohail gives some credence to Ata's statements that Aamir Sohail put him up to making the first affidavit and that it was false. Moreover, it needs be noted that when Aamir Sohail appeared initially before this Commission he was the Captain of Pakistan and had nothing substantial to say. This was despite his making a lot of allegations in the press. Even Ata-ur-Rehman talks of this in his taped conversation with Rashid Latif. Thereafter, once he had left the Captaincy he came back on 19.12.98 to the court with several allegations. All of this damages Aamir Sohail's credibility and gives some credence to Ata's second statement.
As regards allegation one on its own, this commission is left with no option but to hold Wasim Akram not guilty of the charge of match-fixing. This the Commission does so only by giving Wasim Akram the benefit of the doubt. This is done on the ground of insufficient evidence. Wasim is barely saved through Ata-ur-Rehman's discrediting himself and Aamir Sohail's actions.
As regards allegation two on its own, in light of Dr. Dan Keisel and Intikhab Alam's statement, Wasim Akram cannot be said to have been feigning injury. Therefore he is cleared.
As regards allegation three on its own, of tampering with the batting order to fix the match, it has been said that Wasim was trying to take responsibility by going in himself, a risk that failed. This commission is willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Wasim Akram.
As regards general allegations, although Rashid Latif has made allegations against him but the same have not been substantiated with any evidence. Likewise the statement of Javed Miandad or that for matter Ms. Fareshteh Gati-Aslam or Majid Khan is not sufficient for arriving at a finding of guilt.
Although Aaqib Javed's statement too does not hold some weight as all Aqib said was that someone allegedly delivered Wasim's threat. As such this is strictly hearsay and inadmissible.
In favor of Akram, there is the evidence of police inquiries made into the kidnapping of his father. The two inquiries have revealed that the kidnapping did not concern match-fixing or gambling.
However, once this commission looks at the allegations in their totality, this commission feels that all is not well here and that Wasim Akram is not above board. He has not co-operated with this Commission. It is only by giving Wasim Akram the benefit of the doubt after Ata-ur-Rehman changed his testimony in suspicious circumstances that he has not been found guilty of match-fixing. He cannot be said to be above suspicion. It is, therefore, recommended that he be censured and be kept under strict vigilance and further probe be made either by the Government of Pakistan or by the Cricket Board into his assets acquired during his cricketing tenure and a comparison be made with his income. Furthermore, he should be fined Rs. 3 lac.
More importantly, it is further recommended that Wasim Akram be removed from captaincy of the national team. The captain of the national team should have a spot-less character and be above suspicion. Wasim Akram seems to be too sullied to hold that office.
ALLEGATION ONE: RECEIPT OF A CAR
According to Aaqib Javed, Waqar Younis, among others received a car from Saleem Pervez. This was a Pajero car and he and one other player to Aaqib's knowledge received it. On Aaqib's insistence, Aaqib says Waqar then returned it.
ALLEGATION TWO: INVOLVEMENT IN ATTEMPT TO FIX THE CHRISTCHURCH MATCH
Rashid Latif has stated that Waqar was one of the four who were in the room when Malik offered Rashid a bribe. Waqar along with two others has denied this.
ALLEGATION THREE: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Former captain Javed Miandad said that during his captaincy he had been informed by Idress (Cadbury), who is the brother of alleged, now deceased, bookie Hanif Cadbury, that Waqar Younis, Wasim Akram and another player whose name he could not remember were on his brother's books.
Intikhab Alam says that after the Singer Trophy match against Australia in Sri Lanka, when the team went to the hotel, he received a call from a caller who did not divulge his name. He stated that he had lost Rs 40 lacs and that four to five players had sold themselves. Intikhab thereafter called Waqar Younis, Salim Malik and Basit Ali to his room.
Intikhab Alam also says that when the Pakistan team lost the Mandela Trophy finals in South Africa in 1994-95, he received a call from an anonymous person who said that 7/8 players had been bought over and Waqar Younis was among those.
Rashid Latif mentions that Wasim Akram was reprimanded by manager Intikhab Alam for using his mobile phone in the dressing room in Sri Lanka when mobiles were not to be switched on as per the rules of the Pakistan Cricket Board. The other players who had mobile phones, a time when they were not so common, were Malik and Younis. Akram Raza also mentioned that Waqar had a mobile phone when asked of match-fixing.
As regards allegation one alone, the receipt of a car, Waqar has denied it. No other evidence has been forthcoming to support Aaqib's allegation, not from Aaqib nor from Saleem Pervez. Even if one car was received, it was returned. If Waqar had fixed match for the car, he was likely to have retained it. Perhaps the car was just a lure and Waqar returned it. With no evidence forthcoming, one cannot say. Since the allegedly received car was returned, the matter therefore needs not be further investigated.
As regards allegation two alone, fixing the Christchurch match, in light of denials by two of the three players allegedly present, this Commission cannot say that Waqar was involved in fixing the match. Furthermore, it is too great a jump for a person to say conclusively that just by the fact that an offer was made before a player to fix a match, the person who listened in was involved too.
As regards the general allegations, they are generally baseless. No evidence has been proffered to support them. The evidence against Waqar Younis is primarily hearsay (even then mostly from anonymous sources) and unsubstantiated. Possession of a cellular phone has no probative value unless it is alleged to have been used during a match to fix that match. As such they alone are insufficient to hold Waqar Younis guilty to the requisite standard.
However, all the allegations taken together warrant some action against Waqar Younis. Two of Waqar's own managers and someone reputed to be his friend, Aaqib Javed have alleged wrongdoing against him. These appear sufficient grounds for recommending a censure. Moreover, that Waqar Younus should be kept under observation and investigated. Further, during proceedings it was felt that Waqar Younus has been reluctant to help this commission and even when prompted was not fully forthcoming. It is therefore recommended that he be fined Rs. 1 lac.
Rashid Latif has deposed that these two were among the four players who were present when Salim Malik made him an offer to throw the 5th One Day match at Christchurch against New Zealand. The implication is that they were involved to some extent in match-fixing.
While a place a lot of weight can be placed on Rashid Latif's testimony, in the absence of any other evidence and in light of denials from the co-accused, it is not possible to find them guilty of match-fixing. However, it is recommended that these players be warned, kept under observation and their finances be investigated.
Furthermore, when asked about the Christchurch match, the partial amnesia that these players seem to have developed was distressing. It is understandable that these players have played too many games (except for Akram Raza and Basit Ali) to recall all of them. Nevertheless, there have not been that many matches about which allegations of match-fixing have been made. It was interesting to see one of them remembered the weather of the match, but did not recall any other details. This commission believes that these players probably knew more than they revealed. For not being forthcoming, these players too should be fined Rs. 1 lac each and they be kept under observation.
Intikhab Alam stated that when Pakistan played Australia in the Singer Trophy in Sri Lanka in 1993-94, they lost the game despite being in very good form. (This is the same match in which Saleem Pervez, in his statement says he paid Salim Malik (along with Mushtaq Ahmed) a sum of US$100,000 to drop the game.) Intikhab Alam says that after that match, when the team went to the hotel, he received a call from a caller who did not divulge his name but stated that he had lost Rs 40 lacs and that four to five players had sold themselves. He called Malik, Waqar Younis and Basit Ali to his room. While Malik and Waqar denied match-fixing, Basit said he had been involved.
This is confirmed in Intikhab Alam's tour report for the South Africa/ Zimbabwe 1994-95:
'Basit Ali is the only player in the Pakistan team who have [sic] made a confession that he has been involved in betting, his retirement from cricket is just to save himself.'
There is also the matter of the taped conversation between Salim Malik and Basit Ali and Rashid Latif. In it Basit complains to Salim that Wasim is here in town and he is putting allegations on me.
Basit Ali has been named as among those four players who were in the room when Rashid Latif was made an offer. Basit Ali was ill with Jaundice and therefore not available to confirm or deny this. Due to the deadline of the commission, this lead could not be followed.
Zahid Fazal was allegedly the carrier of a message to Saeed Anwar from Salim Malik to fix a match against Australia in the Singer Trophy in Sri Lanka. Indirectly, allegedly, he was involved in a fix. So he was called by the commission and under oath he denied that the message he took in contained anything suspicious. He said that the message he took in was to tell Saeed Anwar to take singles and not boundaries, and to try to bat out the whole match. He said he took the message in only once. This contradicts Saeed Anwar's statement that the message was sent to him repeatedly. However, that is appears to be nothing suspicious and such inconsistencies are to be expected for a match so long ago.
In the absence of any evidence against him, this commission finds Zahid Fazal not guilty of any match-fixing offence.
In the Singer Trophy match against Australia, Saeed Anwar was sent a message by Salim Malik through Zahid Fazal. The allegation made by Aamir Sohail among others has been that the message was to get out or do something similar.
Saeed Anwar has denied that the message contained anything suspicious. He is supported in this by Zahid Fazal's testimony. Saeed himself in his supplementary statement has said that the message was to be careful. However, Saeed Anwar says he was surprised when he received the message repeatedly as he was batting well and was nearing his fifty.
Saeed Anwar thereafter developed cramps and retired hurt on 43* from 80/2 to 124/5 when he resumed with a runner, only to be out on 46. All this was in the context of chasing a low score of 179 by Australia and Pakistan failing with one wicket in hand and at 151 when the overs ran out.
Javed Burki has stated that Saeed had confessed to him that the message indeed was to get out. And that Saeed has promised to give this in writing. However, Saeed had come back to him and said that he could not do that as his brother had been threatened. Saeed has denied these as contents of the message, but has accepted that his brother was threatened.
The tapes handed in by Rashid Latif reveal that there was something Saeed Anwar was going to reveal, which Mr. Arif Abbassi knew, but he did not do so.
According to Aamir Sohail's statement, Saeed wanted to pay kaffara during the South Africa tour because of helping fix the above match. Saeed felt that he was out of form because of God's curse. It should be noted that South African tour was some time after the Singer Trophy match in which Saeed Anwar retired hurt for no apparent reason and came back to bat at no. 6 when it was impossible to win.
This is corroborated by Rameez Raja in his statement before the interim probe committee. The Probe Committee's Report reads:
'Saeed Anwar was also being accused of betting and he i.e. Saeed Anwar had also once in 1994-95 during the South African tour regretted before him to be a part of the conspiracy (of match-fixing) though he avoided his direct involvement in direct words.'
In Saeed Anwar's favour, a lot of people have said he is clean. Even one of the tapes seems to support this.
In light of the above, this commission itself unable to find any compelling evidence to the requisite standard that Saeed Anwar was involved in match-fixing a particular match.
However, with the totality of evidence this commission does believe that Saeed Anwar has by his actions brought doubt onto himself. Further, this commission felt that Saeed Anwar was witholding some evidence from the Commission. In light of all of this it is recommended that Saeed Anwar be fined Rs. 1 lac and that he be kept under observation.
Mr. Ata-ur-Rehman in his affidavit has stated that the match in Christ Church against New Zealand was fixed by Mr. Ijaz Ahmad and Zafar Ali alias Jojo. He had been told this by Wasim Akram.
Rashid Latif stated in his supplementary statement that just before he was made an offer by Salim Malik to throw the Christchurch one day, Salim was on the phone with someone called Ijaz. Rashid believed that this was Ijaz Ahmad but could not say for certain whether it was Ijaz Ahmad.
In his statement in court Mr. Intikhab Alam has mentioned Mr. Ijaz Ahmad, as one of the players involved in betting and match-fixing. Mr. Alam however gave no further evidence to support his allegation.
Ijaz was said to have associated with gamblers on tour. He has denied this.
According to Haroon Rashid, Ijaz was instrumental in slowing down the batting in the match against Sri Lanka in the Will Cup 1997/98 in Lahore. Ijaz made 94 off of 110 balls and Pakistan lost the match.
There is little evidence to support that Mr. Ijaz Ahmad is or was involved in match-fixing. Ata-ur-Rehman stands discredited and in any event his allegation is hearsay. Rashid Latif could not identify Ijaz Ahmad as being a culprit with certainty. The other allegations are without proof. Mr. Haroon Rashid's allegation is more so. Anyone who scores 94 off of 110 balls on any sort of a wicket cannot be said to be fixing a match.
As such in lieu of evidence to the contrary, this Commission finds Ijaz Ahmad not guilty of match-fixing. No action needs to be taken against him other than that he, as has been recommended with other players, should present an account of his personal finances to the Board. He should also take care so as to not associate with bookies.
Ata has prima facie perjured himself. Proceedings have been instituted against him separately. On the charge of match-fixing, this Commission has Ata's confession which he has later resiled from. As against Ata that confession can still be believed. However, against the co-accused Wasim Akram, it is not admissible. By believing Ata-ur-Rehman's first affidavit, this Commission recommends a ban on him from international cricket for life.
In light of his perjury, it is further found that he has brought the name of the Pakistan team into disrepute. Therefore, Ata-ur-Rehman should also be fined Rs. 4 lac, twice the amount of money, he first claimed he took from Wasim Akram.
Haroon Rasheed has stated that Saqlain bowled suspiciously against India in the Karachi One Dayer as he gave away 16/17 runs to the tailenders in his last over to lose match.
Saqlain has explained that he could not grip the ball properly as the umpires had changed the ball and had given him a new ball albeit sanded down to bowl with. This Commission accepts his explanation. There is no evidence to cast doubt on Saqlain. In fact, Saqlain should consider it a perverse compliment that he is considered so good that each time he goes for runs in the death overs people think he must be doing it purposely.
Rashid Latif has stated in his statement that the whole team in New Zealand other than Asif Mujtaba and possibly Aamir Sohail was involved in match-fixing. In other matches too, different people have made allegations against a substantial part of the team. However, this commission finds no evidence to support this. Most of the allegations, beyond those against three or four individuals, appear conjecture or based on hearsay.
This commission finds a lot of truth in what Saeed Anwar said in one of Rashid Latif's tapes: 'Is waqt sab ko sab par shaq ho raha hai.' (At this moment everyone is suspecting everyone). Paranoia can account for a lot of what was said, for most of the allegations.
Various cricket experts like Imran Khan, Javed Miandad have stated that for a match to be fixed at least 5-7 players ought to be bought. As seen above, this commission could not find conclusive evidence against as many players, thus on the whole the team is cleared of blame.
The current team is in any event a largely new one, and one invested in youth. They are as yet unsullied. Care should be taken so as to ensure they remain so. To this end recommendations are made later in this Report.
Mail Sports Editor
SINGLES | NEWSLINKS | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | GIFT SHOP | HOTEL BOOKINGS
AIR/RAIL | WEATHER | MILLENNIUM | BROADBAND | E-CARDS | EDUCATION
HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | CONTESTS | FEEDBACK