NEWS
SCHEDULES
COLUMNS
PREVIOUS TOURS
OTHER SPORTS
STATISTICS
INTERVIEWS
SLIDE SHOW
ARCHIVES

The Justice Quayyum Report

The Ehtesaab Bureau then submitted a report on match-fixing, indiscipline in the team and mismanagement. It also included some investigation into the World Cup final performance. On the whole the report found all allegations to be baseless and the allegations about the World Cup possibly 'the outcome of an emotional trauma that the nation has gone through during the World Cup.' A brief summary of the report follows:

The Ehtesaab Bureau (EB) report compiled a list of bookies. It was as follows:

'Haneef Caddie – Zafar alias Jo Jo.- Koki.- Saleem and Arif Pappu. Ch.Khalid-Mian Koko- Naseer-Shahzada – Chotani – Iqbal Club – Salim Matka – Jawaid – Mukaish – Ratta – Aslam Bhatti – Gulbert – Riaz – Wasim Anwar – Mian Shaukat Elahi – Rehmat – Pervez – Shabban – Vinod – Daneish – Aneel Steal – Bharat Club – Poley – Pinkey – Ramesh – Salim Pervez.'

The EB report notes that gambling in Cricket has its roots with 'Carry Packer of Australia [Sic!] and for Pakistan in the development of cricket in Sharjah under the guidance of Mr. Abdul Rehman Bukhatir and with the assistance of Mr. Asif Iqbal. Sharjah became a gambling event for bookies. It also noted that most of the gambling is channeled through Bombay, India.

The EB Report further says that 'against all rumors it was surprising to note that a lone player cannot arrange match-fixing through the bookies network. It is practically impossible, because news will flash like a wild fire in the gambling markets. Hence it is difficult for the bookies to make wind-fall by arranging match-fixing. Thus this option was totally ruled out.' On similar reasoning the Report concluded that since the UK gambling system is computer linked, the World Cup could not have been fixed as once more the news of large bets would have flashed all over the UK.

"There are certain matches which are alleged to have been Fixed, have been carefully scrutinized; but we failed to arrive at a definite conclusion that the charges are true in essence and spirit. The charges leveled were wild in nature, devoid of proper evidence to substantiate the allegations. At best it can be defined as varied viewpoint of experts on a technical issue. Discreet inquiries and a bundle of hearsay stories were sifted; but it all had driven us to an inference that even if a match is fixed, it cannot be a team act but it could be an individual act. Thus it is a difficult proposition to track down."

'The assets movement in the form of money laundering etc. (in the players finances) had not gone to an exaggerated extent where one could conclude that black money had trickled into their coffers. Thus we are constrained to conclude in its totality that without any shadow of doubt match-fixing had taken place.'

The Report also did a general review of the situation players are faced with. It notes that players can be taken off track by the various concerns and temptation such as these that litter their path:

short lived career and glamour
uncertain future
social differences among the different groups
attraction from overseas families during foreign tours
attempts to retain positions in the team
resources and benefits are poor for the Pakistan team, even vis-à-vis India
managers are not appropriately paid and have great financial differences vis-à-vis the players they have to control.

The team has failed to be the best it can be because of:
Propaganda unleashed by the losers and international media
Exploitation by the same overseas families who served abroad and defamed the players at home
Internal friction/ lobbying and the politics of the team players
Regional polarization between Lahore and Karachi
Professional jealousy against emerging junior competitors
Exploitation by the print media.
The Report thereafter goes into arguments why the present Board set-up is not the best and needs to be replaced by a modern set-up. That is not the concern of this inquiry, so that part can be ignored.

A number of reasons make this report to be of rather limited value to this Commission:

One, a lot of reasoning therein used is erroneous. The Ehtesaab Bureau Report assumes that anything setup with one bookie would immediately be revealed to other bookies and thereafter no one can make a profit. Therefore it would have us believe no bookie would ever approach a player as doing so would be unprofitable for him. That, putting it lightly, is quite faulty reasoning.

Two, as the report itself notes the time given for inquiry and reporting was only two days. Therefore the report and investigation was not thorough enough. As such it can be largely ignored. The report does though provide some useful information into the temptations that Cricket players are faced with.

After the Sri Lanka tour, Pakistan team played in a home series against Australia in 1994. There has been evidence mentioned earlier that indicated that for the First Test in Karachi and first one day, the Australians Shane Warne, Mark Waugh and Tim May were allegedly offered bribes by Malik to play badly so that Pakistan could win. All three players had given their affidavits now with the Pakistan Cricket Board and the courts. When the Australian team came to Pakistan again in 1998, Waugh made a personal appearance before the Commission of Inquiry with his Captain, Mark Taylor in Lahore and repeated the same allegation. Taylor and Waugh had been cross-examined.

However, when the Australian Cricket Team finished the tour of Pakistan, it was reported in the press that the two Australian cricketers Mark Waugh and Shane Warne had taken money to provide information regarding the Singer Trophy Match between Pakistan and Australia in September, 1994. The two players admitted in a press conference that they had accepted money from a person named John. The match on which the two Australians had admitted giving information for consideration from John was the same match for losing which Saleem Pervez said that he had paid Salim Malik and Mushtaq Ahmad and hence it became necessary to further examine them. Moreover, it also cast some doubt on the credibility of the Australians as they had not been above board with the commission. They had not revealed these material facts as to why they precisely were approached by Malik. In the light of John's offer and acceptance by these two it was clear why Malik had approached these two only. Malik had possibly heard these two had some connections with bookies and so were approachable.

Therefore, efforts were made to summon these players in Pakistan again at PCB's expenses. As such summons were sent to Australian Cricket Board and in response to which Australian Cricket Board requested that perhaps a video concerned via satellite could do the job. Alternatively a Commission be sent to Australia at their cost and lastly if the two offers were not acceptable the player should come to Pakistan. The video conferencing option could not materialize. So on the offer of the Australian Cricket Board a one member Commission of Inquiry comprising of Mr. Abdus Salam Khawar, Judge, who is also Registrar of this Commission, along with Mr. Ali Sibtain Fazli and his associate, Mr. Ali Sajjad, flew to Australia to cross-examine the said players in the light of this new evidence at the cost of Australian Cricket Board. The Commission comprised of Mr. Abdul Salam Khawar, Judge, Mr. Ali Sibtain Fazli, Mr. Ali Sajjad, counsels assisting the Inquiry Commission, Mr. Azmat Saeed, the counsel for Salim Malik, also went to Australia. Mr. Brian Ward, the Australian Cricket Board's legal advisor became amicus curae for the inquiry. Mr. Michael Shatin, QC represented Mark Waugh and Mr. Lassen alongwith Mr. Andrew Hudson represented Shane Warne. Mr. Allan Crompton, former Chairman Australian Cricket Board appeared. Mr. Tim May, Test Cricketer, was present but not called.

Mark Waugh in Australia made a statement. According to him, he met a person John in Sri Lanka during the Singer Trophy in September, 1994. John offered him US$ 4,000 which he accepted for providing information regarding pitch and weather condition. Waugh firmly stated that he did not agree to give any kind of information regarding individuals, team tactics or team selection. After that meeting, he talked to John approximately 10 times and gave no more information other than to what he had agreed upon. He was the one who introduced John to Shane Warne in a Casino and was told by Warne the next day that John had given Warne US$ 5000 to place on bets.

Mark Waugh was thereafter cross-examined by Mr. Fazli. The following salient points came out:

During the cross examination, Mark Waugh stated that Salim Malik's offer came as a shock to him although he had already taken bribe from John before that.

When asked as to why he was given money for information which a groundsman would well have been in a better position to give, Mark Waugh replied that he had been playing cricket since the age of 10 and had practical knowledge of the pitches.

During the cross examination it was also revealed that before going for the West Indies tour, Mr. Alan Crompton and Mr. Graham Halbish, the Chief Executive and the Chairman, ACB, had fined him without giving any show cause notice as such.

Mark Waugh when confronted with questions from Mr. Fazli, accepted that he was a frequent bettor. He placed bets on golf, rugby and horse races but never on cricket.

His affidavit, according to him, was written by the ACB Solicitor and he only signed it.

Mr. Azmat Saeed, learned counsel for Salim Malik thereafter cross-examined Waugh. He confronted Mark Waugh with questions regarding the meeting between Salim Malik and Mark Waugh himself. According to Mark Waugh, the information regarding the meeting between Malik and him was not disclosed the same day he was offered the money by Malik. Although he was clear in his mind as to what his response would be, Mr. Saeed said, it was curious still that he asked for some time from Malik and never disclosed to anyone that day. While Shane Warne did not take part in the conversation when the money was offered, to throw away a one day game at Rawalpindi, he was within an earshot to Mark Waugh. Mark Waugh also stated that he never talked to Malik after that incident.

Shane Warne thereafter made a statement. (He had not made one before the Commission in Lahore). According to him, John gave him the money the next day and not same night they met for the first time.. The money, according to Warne, was given as a token of appreciation. John had said he was a fan of Warne's and had won money on him. So the money was a gift. The amount he received was US$ 5000. He talked to John only three times after that incident:-

Prior to the One Day game in Sydney in early December, 1994.

In Melbourne, just before the Boxing Day test later that year

In Perth in February, 1995.

All the three times, John only inquired about pitch and weather conditions.

After the tour of New Zealand had finished and whilst on the way to West Indies, he was asked by Alan Crompton, the Chairman, Graham Halbish, the Chief Executive and Ian McDonald to talk about the bookmaker in Sri Lanka and was subsequently fined $ 8,000.

On the Pakistan tour in September, 1994, he was called by Malik to his room in the hotel and was offered US$ 200,000 to throw away the Karachi Test by getting another bowler Tim May to bowl badly with him. He told Malik to get lost and the same was the answer by Tim May when told about the offer by Warne. Warne, according to him, thereafter went back to his room and told May.

Towards the end of October, 1994 at the Presidential function, he heard Salim Malik offering bribe to Mark Waugh for the One Day match at Rawalpindi.

In February, 1995, he was asked to make a short summary of the incident and was asked to sign a declaration in April, 1995.

Shane Warne was thereafter cross-examined by Mr. Fazli. The following points came out of the cross-examination:

Warne denied knowing any one by the name of Saleem Pervez.

He was fined by the ACB without any show cause notice being given. Warne did not know as to how the information was disclosed to the ACB.

The declaration was made in the hotel room in Antigua. He was asked certain questions and then they were written down and Warne signed them.

Warne revealed that he was a frequent gambler.

When asked as to why he did not tell Waugh, at the Presidential function, that he had also been offered money by Salim Malik, Warne replied that he was not directly involved in the conversation and thought that Mark Waugh must be knowing it already because majority of the players had information about the incident. This was so even though he had earlier said he had only disclosed the meeting to Mark Taylor and Bob Simpson.

When asked as to why he did not tell Mark Taylor the whole incident the same night he was offered money by Malik, he responded that it was already quite late at night when Malik called him and by the time this whole episode was over, it was already midnight. Therefore, he thought that it would be more appropriate to talk the next day.

He denied having any information regarding the match in Sri Lanka between Australia and Pakistan in which he was declared Man of the Match.

Learned Counsel for Salim Malik thereafter cross-examined Shane Warne. The following points came out of that cross-examination.

Warne disclosed that he gave the statement when inquiry in Pakistan had been initiated and he was asked for a statutory declaration.

He explained the whole incident in a few words through the ACB lawyer Graham Johnson and then he answered certain questions and every thing was written down.

In New Zealand, Ian McDonald asked him if he was ever involved with a Bookmaker and subsequently was fined before leaving for the Windies tour.

Warne claimed that he was never accused of being a liar, on his face by Malik, after the allegation.

Mr. Michael Shatin QC stated in court that Mr. Salim Malik had never approached Mark Waugh or Shane Warne regarding these allegations, although they had met several times after the incident. Why not if Malik was not guilty. This assertion carries weight.

Continued...