Lateef Jafri: Why a fresh probe against Aamir Sohail? (20 May 1997)

20 May 1997

Why a fresh probe against Aamir Sohail?

By Lateef Jafri

KARACHI, May 19: The cricket board has created more confusion by not meeting the demands of the parliamentarians, cricket fans, media critics and the public in general and taking a conditional decision on the Aamir Sohail issue.

All followers of the game had expected that once the Adviser to the Prime Minister on Sports, Syed Mushahid Husain, had listened to the points of view of the two sides and had given a compromise formula to resolve the dispute the officialdom of the PCB will show moderation and lenity, entirely in the interest of cricket and the country, and reverse its earlier penalisation of a two-year ban. The Council, the higher tier of the PCB, after a marathon session, converted the ban into a fine but asked the famed opening batsman to appear before its disciplinary committee for expatiating his allegations on bribery and match-fixing with what it calls "solid evidence."

In the first instance many enthusiasts of the game like to know why a second round of inquiry has been thought necessary. According to PCB it will be a very detailed one, which supposedly will involve all the "hidden hands" as also those hitherto mentioned in regard to the match-throwing and bribery cases. Certainly this new process or effort at cleansing the Aegean stables will throw a stream of fresh issues, will degenerate into personal bickerings and further tarnish the image of the country's cricket instead of enhancing it and coming to a fair decision. The Adviser to the Prime Minister had, without mincing words, told the Senate that the Sohail issue had been delinked from the bribery allegations, which in unambiguous terms mean that the PCB, or for that matter its Executive Council, should have adopted a temporising attitude at its meeting called at the behest of the Federal Government. Besides, the board had received unconditional apology from Aamir Sohail and it was to accept the appeal and close the chapter. The board would then have earned the appreciation of the general public, which was apparently standing by the cricketer and wanted him back into the mainstream of the national cricket.

Certainly the Council, convoked for the first time to have a second look at a subject, was not supposed to have put a rider on its decision. The action which one expected from the members of the Council was the overturning of the ban clamped at an earlier meeting held 27 days ago. A one-month punishment meted out on personal grounds was sufficient. The second instalment of the penal action betrayed animus against an all-rounder, who in the opinion of experts, is an asset to the country's cricket.

Many are of the view that after the first meeting of the Council, an emergent session of the same tier of the board should not have been summoned. Instead the General Body, the highest authority of the board, which has the powers to "exercise appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over the decisions of the Council and other affiliated bodies of the board," under clause 14 (G) of the board's constitution should have been called into session. Seen from the constitutional angle the second exercise of the Council becomes irregular and illegal. The whole decision of replacing the ban with a heavy fine and then directing the cricketer to reappear before the disciplinary committee cannot stand the test of fairness and constitutionality. Whatever may be the functions of the Council it cannot take back its own decision; only a higher body can give a ruling on this issue.

There are many cricket enthusiasts who want to know how the Council's ban was imposed on two separate complaints. Talat Ali, chairman of the disciplinary committee, had in a very clear-cut way stated that the punishment had been given due to allegations made by Sohail against team-mates (on bribery and match-fixing) and criticism of Javed Burki. The charges against the cricketer were lumped together and the penalisation was a two-year ban. No separation of the complaint and charges was announced when the disciplinary panel took its decision on April 17. The fans of the game have doubts over the intentions of the top office holders of the board. Once the reversal of an action takes place the ban goes. A recycling of the investigation is unimaginable. Why cannot the cricket officials show justice towards a famed cricketer. Further probe and inquiry mean pure harassment and nothing else.

Besides, if there had been a criticism of Javed Burki, he is not an official of the board. Burki, heading the Ad hoc committee had berated Salim Malik, accused by Australians Tim May, Shane Warne and Mark Waugh, of bid to bribe them on the Pakistan tour. He had reportedly seen the documents sent by the Australian board at the ICC headquarters in London. He was fuming with anger at the behaviour of a senior cricketer and wanted him not to be selected later. He deplored reports of match-fixing in South Africa and Zimbabwe and perhaps wanted a thorough probe into such incidents (or rumours). Later an inquest was held and in an ex parte finding the Pakistani cricketer was absolved from the charges. But doubts still persist that the evil continues - not gambling and betting, an international phenomenon, but the detestable game of match-fixing and bribery. Why at all the Pakistanis should be a party to it?

Hanif Mohammad, former captain and usually detached from cricket politics, resented the reopening of the Aamir Sohail case asking him to again go through the process of a probe. In his opinion the cricket officials want to keep the star performer under pressure. How can Aamir deliver the goods, asked Hanif Mohammad? It is one of the tricks of the cricket administrators to bring to an end a brilliant career, regretted Little Master.

Some others have pointed out that it was the present board which had spoiled Aamir Sohail's contract with English county Middlesex, had removed him from vice-captaincy and relegated him in the batting order and dropped him from the team. The victimisation must end and the Government, with a cricket-fan Prime Minister at its helm, should see to it that justice is done to a brilliant cricketer, whose services should be requisitioned for the country's outfit.

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