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

The Justice Quayyum Report

On the request of the learned counsels for the accused, the commission allowed counsels an opportunity to give closing submissions, so as to sum up the case of each side. The amicus was also asked to and did make a submission.

They were asked to inter alia address the following questions:

What is the standard of proof to be applied in this case?

Why have people blamed their respective clients?

Why individuals have said what they have said against them?

What is the evidence for and against?

Why is it that a majority of managers of the team say there has been match-fixing?

What recommendations can they make for stopping match-fixing in the future?

Counsel for Salim Malik:

Mr. Azmat Saeed for the accused Salim Malik made his submissions. He submitted that a match can only be fixed by 5 or 6 players working together. It cannot be fixed by an individual working alone. One player can win a match, but it takes a conspiracy for a team to loose.

Salim Pervez' statement is like a 'multiple choice test.' Between his statement and cross-examination there are a number of material contradictions. He is confused about who carried the money. He says that he went to Sri Lanka to fix a match, whereas at another time he said it had already been fixed. He says that he did not place a bet on the match. Then why fix it ?

The only reason so many people have given evidence against Salim Malik is that he has an abrasive personality.

Similarly Rashid Latif should not be believed because all the players he has named as co-accused in Christchurch have denied the matter.

Moreover, the Australians are not to be believed because they waited four months to make their statement. While they were in Pakistan they did not make a hint of such a thing to the PCB or anyone for that matter.

Therefore, he submitted, it cannot be said to the requisite standard of proof that his client is guilty.

Counsel for Wasim Akram:

Mr. Khawaja Tariq Raheem made his submissions for his client, Wasim Akram. He stated that most of his arguments have already been submitted in written form. They were as follows:

'The… allegations are based on hearsay evidence, tainted with ulterior motives and malafide intentions, beset with contradictions and are indicative of the sheer lack of credibility of the persons making the depositions.'

Ata-ur-Rehman in view of his retraction cannot be believed. Inter alia, he said that Ijaz Ahmad was instrumental in fixing the Christchurch match. Ijaz was not even in New Zealand in any capacity much less as part of the team.

In the Akhbar-e-Watan article and the Nawa-e-Waqt statement dated 10.1.97, Ata has in fact praised Wasim Akram and stated that he did not offer Ata money.

Ata-ur-Rehman has stated that his original affidavit is with Mr. Khalid Mehmood, whereas Aamir Sohail has produced the same before the commission on 19.12.98. This indicates that both have colluded to implicate and malign Wasim Akram.

There are contradictions between Aamir Sohail's first statement against Wasim Akram and his supplementary statement. In the first statement on 8.10.98 Sohail categorically denied any knowledge of match-fixing yet he changed his stance two months later. This, he did in order to find a place in the team.

The contents of the supplementary statement have no probative value as the allegations are conjectural and full of contradictions. Further, Sohail did not report the matters he highlighted to the BCCP or the manager at the relevant times.

The statement of Rashid Latif does not contain an iota of evidence and contains baseless allegations. The fact that players used mobile phone cannot be used to draw inferences of match-fixing against him. The allegations arise out of bitterness for having been replaced in the team by a competent all-rounder in Moin Khan. He has failed to report the matters complained of to any BCCP or the team manager at any relevant time.

Javed Miandad's statement that he was told by Haneef Cadbury that Wasim was a bought player is hearsay and no plausible evidence has been provided in support. It is interesting to recall that Miandad cannot even recall the name of the third player who had been bought according to Cadbury.

Majid Khan has alleged match-fixing in that the batting order was changed by Wasim Akram to the detriment of the team. In Wasim's defence it can be said that he is a quick scorer and often such a scorer is brought up the order to make a few quick runs.

In addition to the written submissions he orally submitted that the standard of proof required under the 1956 Act was that of beyond reasonable doubt as the commission may recommend criminal sanctions. He sought support from the case of the Lone Commission in the matter of the co-operatives.

He stated that there are in fact three matches about which there is some doubt that they might have been fixed: the Christchurch match, the Singer Cup and the match against England in Sharjah where there was controversy over the batting order. In the first two, Wasim's performance with the ball was outstanding. At Christchurch, his figures were 6.3 over for 18 runs, less runs per over given than anyone else in the team. That Wasim did not complete his overs was up to the Captain. In the Singer Cup he bowled ten overs for 28 runs and bagged three wickets. Finally, as regards the Sharjah match, the allegation is that Wasim did not send Moin Khan or Azhar Mehmood ahead of him. Azhar Mehmood was not well-established in those days and his one-day record was bad. Moin Khan when sent in did not score many himself.

Ata-ur-Rehman's statements are loaded with inconsistencies. He cannot be believed.

Counsel to Wasim Akram indicated that it was suspicious that all the players accusing the Pakistani players come from the same team, Allied Bank of Pakistan. Rashid Latif, Ata-ur-Rehman, Aaqib Javed, Aamir Sohail and as their captain Rameez Raja.

As regards recommendations to stop match-fixing, he recommended that win bonuses be introduced. Moreover, the players should be remunerated on par with other cricketers around the world.

If the Commission did find anyone guilty, the appropriate punishment would be a censure, perhaps a ban for some time, or more appropriately a fine.

The submissions of the amicus curiea:

Mr. Ali Sibtain Fazli, who is the Legal Advisor of Pakistan Cricket Board and has been the Counsel assisting this Commission, was asked to appear as an amicus-curiea in the case. He first addressed the Court with regard to the yard sticks of proof that would be required for the purposes of arriving at any conclusion by this Commission regarding the involvement of any player or other official or person in match fixing. He contended that the rules of evidence for civil and criminal cases are, in general, the same. But some provisions in the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, are peculiar to criminal cases and others peculiar to civil cases. There is, however, a marked difference as to the effect of evidence in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, a mere pre-ponderance of evidence and probability are sufficient to serve as the basis of decision while in criminal cases proof of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt is required. He cited references from the Evidence Act, 1872 by M. Monir. He further stated that the case of the cricketers and the present inquiry can, at best, be equated with that of service servants or other service matters, and a domestic inquiry that is held on the basis of which they may be dismissed from service. The yardstick for arriving at such a decision would not be of proving guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but would be based on pre-ponderance of evidence.

The Counsel was asked by the Commission as to against which of the players was there any direct evidence of match fixing. The Counsel named Saleem Malik, Wasim Akram and Mushtaq Ahmad. He also stated that in the case of Basit Ali and Waqar Younis, there is some evidence against them, but it is not sufficient to arrive at any final conclusion. He also named Ijaz Ahmad and stated that although his name has been mentioned by quite a few persons, but there is no direct evidence against him to prove that he has been involved in match fixing.

Against Salim Malik he indicated there were statements of the Australians, Rashid Latif and Saleem Pervez. General allegation were leveled by a number of others. Primarily, most people name Malik as a king-pin.

According to Rashid Latif, Malik probably fixed the Christchurch match with Ijaz Ahmed and Zafar Ali Jojo. He went to Sri Lanka and fixed the Singer Trophy match with Salim Pervez. There, John had approached the Australians. Malik was probably told of this. He therefore tried to bribe the Australians when he saw them. Then when the team went to South Africa, the matter came to a head when Rashid Latif finally cried foul in public. The Australians thereafter came forward with their allegations. The pattern is there.

As against Wasim Akram there was the evidence of Ata-ur-Rehman primarily and to certain extent Rashid Latif. Plus there were statements of various office holders and the issue of changing the batting order in Sharjah and the withdrawal from the Quarterfinal in Bangalore. In light of Ata's U-turn, Ata's story cannot be believed. However, it should be recommended that Wasim Akram be warned and kept under observation.

As against Mushtaq there is the statement of Salim Pervez that he did give Mushtaq and Malik the money to fix a match in Sri Lanka.

With this the inquiry was closed on the 30th of September, 1999.

Continued....