Ad hoc body compounds confusion in cricket (2 August 1999)

2 August 1999

Ad hoc body compounds confusion in cricket

Lateef Jafri

For some months Mujeebur Rahman's nomination as the head of the country's cricket setup was being mentioned in the national print media. He himself had said in an interview to a Gulf daily that he had requested a deferment of his assignment as the Chief Executive of the Board until the end of the World Cup.

However, the suspension of The Management of the cricket board and his appointment as chairman of the ad hoc committee came as a bolt from the blue. To the game's followers it was an extreme step. The three-year tenure of Majid Khan, former Test captain, had ended and Majeebur Rahman, a leading industrialist and businessman running his concerns successfully and professionally, may well have filled the breach. Surprisingly no reasons were mentioned in the official notification for the change, thoughMujeebur Rahman in his Karachi Press conference, said the action was taken because of mismanagement. Earlier, Javed Zaman, an Ad hoc member had advanced indiscipline dwing the World Cup as a reason in addition to the mismanagement.

It appears that the charge against the players of match-fixing and betting, particularly in the World Cup, is being given more importance and it is being investigated by some governmental agencies, especially the Accountability Cell. The judicial commission of Justice Malik Qayyum of the Lahore High Court is still busy with his inquest.

As the ad hoc committee chief has promised to cleanse the 'augean stables' he has suspended three noted cricketers viz Wasim Akram, Ijaz Ahmed and Salim Malik, till further orders on the basis of the interim report of the board's own probe panel, headed by Justice Ijaz Yousuf, released by the Ehtesab Bureau. The report is 10-month old and has nothing to do with the World Cup. It is a debatable point if the curb on the players was right or wrong as the Qayyum commission's inquiry is still proceeding and its recommendations for penal action are yet to come. A number of legal experts have questioned the involvement of the Accountability Cell in the cricket affairs and its authority to frame charges against cricketers as according to them only public office holders and government and semi-government functionaries in the rank of grade 20 and above come within the jurisdiction of the bureau under Section 2 of the Ehtesab Act.

Whatever the lawyers may say about the ban on the reputed players and about the danger of depletion of the national squad, many cricket observers have taken the suspension of the board with a pinch of salt.They point out that in the constitution, particularly in Part VII as gazetted on March 16, 1995, article 41 refers to supersession of the board which action of the patron may last for an unlimited period. A suspension is a temporary interruption in the work, a debar from the office for a time. A supersession has an entirely different connotation. Supersession sets aside the officialdom and replaces it by another lot for a period of unlimited duration. Article 41 of the constitution reads; "The patron may, if satisfied that the board is unable to perform its functions for any reason, by order supersede the management of the board and appoint an ad hoc committee, consisting of a chairman and as many members as he may consider appropriate for performance of the functions of the board". In that case the powers of the General Body and the Council are assumed by the ad hoc committee. The functions of the high tiers of the board cannot be taken over by a temporary setup if The Management of the cricket organisation is suspended or is temporarily made functionless. The whole exercise appears flawed and irregular and the actions of the newly-installed incumbents lack legal backing.

Similarly the suspension of the affiliated associations, whatever may be the effort at reform and fresh elections by the ad hoc panel, cannot be justified and has no constitutional base. The Karachi unit had recently gone through the process of elections. Perhaps the allegation of bogus clubs in its fold does not hold water as most of the clubs have a team, sufficient members, an office and an audited account to show. Besides Article 37 of the cricket board constitution reads, "If, at any time the Council is of the opinion that the affairs of a full member or associate member are not being carried out in accordance with the constitution, or its conduct is derogatory or repugnant to the aims and objects of the board or it no longer fulfils the qualifications for membership, or has failed to abide by the undertaking given by it or has failed to meet its financial obligations to the board it may suspend its membership. Have any of the associations not carried out the cricket functions assigned to it. Undoubtedly the ad hoc action would harm the activities of the game so near the opening of the season. But the question again arises has the new setup taken upon itself the powers of the Council?

If the replacement of the previous administrators of the board was due to mishandling the affairs of cricket - as mentioned by Mujeebur Rahman in his Karachi Press briefing - they should be taken to task and not let off scot-free. A lot of financial deals were struck by them and either the patron should set up a separate probe panel or the matter should be referred to the judicial commission, already engaged in issues of cricket, though of a different nature. If some embezzlement of funds is found out the previous functionaries should be made accountable and penal action may be taken for the missing account.

The patron's decision to appoint the ad hoc committee was mainly an action against the previous management, as the official notification said. The players' issue and their doubtful role in the World Cup was a later development. Maybe it was a reaction to the countrywide hue and cry over the debacle in the Lord's final. It may hopefully be taken up by the high court judge, though no defeated cricketplaying country did so. One finds that under the ICC Christchurch accord early this year all full members have to take a uniform action. Did the West Indies penalise its players or did India institute an inquiry on their failure to qualify for the pre-final? There was a change of leadership in Sri Lanka but no punishment to the players. The action against the three players, has shaken the whole lot of youths. Can they put up a good performance in accord with the people's expectation.

Many cricket followers are debating if the ouster of a setup followed by an interim arrangement like the ad hoc committee is harmful or beneficial to the game of the country. This is the third ad hoc panel but the more recent one was the surprising ouster of former chief justice, Dr Nasim Hasan Shah, from the top slot of the cricket organisation on the accusation of 'financial irregularities'. It created a stir in the whole cricketing world. The Javed Burki Committee, which had taken over from the Nasim Hasan-Shahid Rafi duo did more damage than good to the game.

Immediately it had to face a players' revolt against the captaincy of Wasim Akram. The whole cricket activity came to a standstill till a new skipper was named for trips to Dhaka and New Zealand. Then when the Australians Tim May, Shane Warne and Mark Waugh made bribery allegations against the then captain Salim Malik, ad hoc chief Javed Burki unilaterally and without hearing the player's side of the story accepted the Aussie statements while meeting the ICC officials. Did he set up any inquiry or take any action against his player-players? None. The reverberations of his blunder are still being echoed and re-echoed in the country and abroad. Not much gain came to the home cricketers during the tenure of that committee (December 1993 to April 1994). A democratic setup, entirely through elections, would be much beneficial to cricket and avert the confusion now prevailing in the game.

Source :: Dawn (https://dawn.com/)