PART I



BACKGROUND TO INQUIRY





1.Cricket has always put itself forth as a gentleman's game.
However, this aspect of the game has come under strain time
and again, sadly with increasing regularity. From BodyLine
to Trevor Chappel bowling under-arm, from sledging to ball
tampering, instances of gamesmanship have been on the rise.
Instances of sportsmanship like Courtney Walsh refusing to
run out a Pakistani batsman for backing up too soon in a
crucial match of the 1987 World Cup; Imran Khan, as Captain
calling back his counterpart Kris Srikanth to bat again
after the latter was annoyed with the decision of the
umpire; batsmen like Majid Khan walking if they knew they
were out; are becoming rarer yet. Now, with the massive
influx of money and sheer increase in number of matches
played, cricket has become big business. Now like other
sports before it (Baseball (the Chicago 'Black-Sox' against
the Cincinnati Reds in the 1919 World Series), Football
(allegations against Bruce Grobelar; lights going out at the
Valley, home of Charlton Football club)) Cricket faces the
threat of match-fixing, the most serious threat the game has
faced in its life.

2.Match-fixing is an international threat. It is quite
possibly an international reality too. Donald Topley, a
former county cricketer, wrote in the Sunday Mirror in 1994
that in a county match between Essex and Lancashire in 1991
Season, both the teams were heavily paid to fix the match.
Time and again, former and present cricketers (e.g. Manoj
Prabhakar going into pre-mature retirement and alleging
match-fixing against the Indian team; the Indian Team
refusing to play against Pakistan at Sharjah after their
loss in the Wills Trophy 1991 claiming matches there were
fixed) accused different teams of match-fixing. The Sri
Lankan Board ordered an inquiry after a complete batting
collapse led to their loss in the Singer Cup Final against
Pakistan, the match that at a stage they were easily
winning. Very recently allegations that have come to the
fore through Chris Lewis, Stephen Flemming etc. and they
only demonstrate the world-wide nature of this threat.

3.However, this commission is limited to inquiring into the
matter so far as the Pakistan Cricket team is concerned. For
the Pakistani Cricket Team, the allegation of match-fixing
seems to have started when Asif Iqbal was the captain of the
Pakistani team in 1979-80. Asif was accused of betting on
the toss. G. Vishwanath, an Indian cricketer in his book has
written that when he went for the toss with the Pakistani
Skipper, the latter without completing the toss said
"congratulations" to the former, saying that the Indian
skipper had won the toss.

4.In the Press Fareshteh Gati-Aslam, a Sports Journalist,
wrote that in a one day match held at Nottingham, UK, Wasim
Akram and Waqar Younis deliberately bowled so badly that
England team scored more than 300 runs, though earlier they
had totally demolished the English Team in the Test Series.

5.In the 1994-95 season, the Australian team toured Pakistan
and lost the Test Series 1-0. After the series, three of the
Australian players, Shane Warne, Tim May and Mark Waugh
accused the then Pakistani Captain, Salim Malik, of offering
them bribes to bowl badly in a test and a one-day. (Pakistan
had eventually won the test match by one wicket.)

6.In the backdrop of these allegations, the Pakistan Cricket
Board (the 'PCB') requested Jst. (Retd.) Fakhruddin G.
Ibrahim to hold an inquiry into the allegations by the
Australian players against Salim Malik. He submitted his
report on October 21, 1995 in which he acquitted Salim Malik
of all the charges primarily on the basis of insufficient
evidence on record. The Australian Cricketers had refused to
come to Pakistan to testify and that was crucial.

7.Almost at the same time as the Australian allegations,
Pakistani cricketers Basit Ali and Rashid Latif had accused
some of the Pakistani players of match-fixing. Both even
went into pre-mature retirement during an important tour of
South Africa. Aaqib Javed and Aamir Sohail also came up with
similar kind of allegations.

8.In the interim, a Probe Committee inquiry chaired made by
Justice Ejaz Yousuf was also made which tentatively
suggested that certain players be suspended from playing
Cricket. However, this inquiry was abandoned as it was felt
that the Committee did not have the powers of a judge which
could compell people to speak up. Furthermore, this enquiry
was done ex parte and no opportunity was given to the
accused to cross-examine witnesses or have representation.
As such this inquiry was in breach of natural justice and
may be disregarded. (The Senate too has thereafter looked
into the matter.) The above difficulties are mentioned in
the letter from the then Chief Executive Majid Khan to the
Patron of the Board, the President of Pakistan.

9.In such circumstances, the former Chief Executive of
Pakistan Cricket Board, Mr. Majid Khan decided to write to
the Patron. In the said letter Majid Khan requested that a
judicial inquiry be conducted into the allegations of
betting and match-fixing, as he felt that only a judicial
commission would be able to find the truth. Ordinary
domestic inquiry officers had no power vested in them to
either summon any person, nor to compel their attendance or
to make them give statements on oath and in case they
perjured, to be able to deal with them. 

10.The Patron was so minded to forward the matter to the
Federal Government which in turn requested the Chief Justice
of the Lahore High Court to nominate one judge for a one man
judicial Commission under the Commission of Inquiry Act,
1956. On the recommendation of the Learned Chief Justice,
Mr. Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum was appointed to this
Commission.

11.The Commission of Inquiry was given its mandate in the
following terms:-

a.To probe into the allegations regarding betting and
match-fixing against the members of the Pakistan Cricket
Team.

b.To determine and identify the persons including members
of the team responsible for betting and match-fixing.

c.To recommend such actions as may be appropriate; and

d.To suggest measures to avoid any future incidence.





PART II



THE INQUIRY & PROCEDURE





1.The appointment of this Commission was made through a
Notification dated 13th of August, 1998. In terms of the
Notification, all the secretarial services and assistance
were to be provided by Pakistan Cricket Board. 

2.This Commission was faced with a rather difficult task at
its outset. There was no legislation on match-fixing, no
rules and regulations that this commission could go by. In
effect, this Commission had to start from scratch.

3.This Commission was appointed under the Commission of
Inquiry Act 1956. Under the said Act, it was empowered to
determine its own procedure. So the Commission decided that
rules of natural justice like hearing and right of
cross-examination must be applied. It consequently heard not
only the persons accused of match-fixing but also allowed
them the opportunity to cross-examine whichever witnesses
made allegations against them. The Commission went to the
extent of recalling certain witnesses at the request of the
accused and also sought clarification from them.

Definition of match-fixing applied:

4.Therafter the first task at hand was to define what
match-fixing was. For the purpose of this inquiry,
'match-fixing' is defined as deciding the outcome of a match
before it is played and then playing oneself or having
others play below one's/ their ability to influence the
outcome to be in accordance with the pre-decided outcome.
Match-fixing is done primarily for pecuniary gain.

5.Match-fixing, as well as an attempt to fix a match, are to
be considered an offence for the purpose of this inquiry.

Offences coming under Match-fixing:

6.This Commission believes that the appropriate punishment for
match-fixing is a ban for life and institution of criminal
charges. This needs to be so for deterrence reasons among
others. As much has been said from most quarters, like Imran
Khan, Majid Khan, etc. However, an offence of such a harsh
punishment, then requires a high burden of proof. Further,
such an offence needs to be established with specifics, most
particularly which match was fixed.

7.With the above parameters set, there then appeared a gap
wherein people against whom their own managers and a whole
lot of allegations were made, managed to slip through,
despite bringing the name of the team and their own name as
national sport ambassadors into disrepute. The Commission
therefore was minded to consider this an offence too under
the umbrella of match-fixing: this, i.e. to bring the name
of the team and self as national ambassador into disrepute
was to be considered an offence. Such an offence would
attract the lesser punishments of censure, fine,
investigation and being kept under observation. (The
presence of such an offence in the future too would ensure
the players act impeeccably and not associate with bookies,
etc.)

8.In short then, the two offences coming under match-fixing
are:

a.Match-fixing,

b.Bringing the name of the team into disrepute
(match-fixing related).

1.This Commission believes the above is the most balanced
system of procedure such an inquiry can have. Various
factors such as fairness to the players, fairness to the
team, and the difficulty of finding proof in such cases of
corruption can herein be balanced. 

Burden of proof for offences:

2.Everyone is innocent in the eyes of this Commission until
proven guilty. A player may play for the country and/ or
captain its team until he is found guilty by this
Commission. The burden of proof is on the party making
allegations.

Standard of Proof for a finding of guilt for match-fixing:
grounds for life ban and other high penalties:

3.With due regard to the submissions of the counsels and the
amicus curae (see Part IV), it must be stated that the
burden of proof is somewhere in between the criminal and
normal civil standard.

4.It is not as high as the counsel for Wasim Akram
recommended, that the case needs to be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. This is a commission of inquiry and not a
criminal court of trial so that standard need not be high.
The Lone Commission report was a report on its own facts and
needs to be distinguished.

5.Having said that, it must also be added that this Commission
is aware of what consequences a preliminary, tentative
finding of guilt in this Report will have on the career of a
player. If this Report is released to the public, a finding
of guilt are likely to effectively amount to a conviction.
The player is likely to lose his livelihood for the time
being and possibly the prime of his career. Therefore, the
submission by the amicus that the standard of proof should
be lower as all the commission is doing is making
recommendations is not completely accepted.

6.Moreover, there are a number of other reasons why the
standard of proof for a finding of guilt is not as low as
the amicus proposes. The amicus bases his submission on
Munir's evidence tome. That book while authoritative was
written many years ago. In those days perjury was not as
widespread. So the standard could be low. Now, there needs
to be much higher standard as with the general decline in
moral standards, people do perjure themselves. In fact,
before this commission a person did perjure himself.
Generally too it was felt that the whole truth was not
forthcoming from several people in this case. Hence the
higher standard of proof than the preponderance of
probabilities.

7.Lastly, as to the proof of guilt, it must be added that for
the Commission to be convinced, to arrive at a finding of
guilt, it must be convinced of the specifics of the offence.
More than anything, the Commission needs to know that one
particular match was fixed. Actions taken before or after,
inferences of disposition from or later allegations, in
regards to other matches will not figure in the
determination of guilt of match-fixing.

Standard of proof for bringing own and the name of the team
into disrepute (match-fixing related): grounds for censure,
being kept under observation: 

8.While the commission has set itself a rather high standard
that needs to be satisfied in order to arrive at a finding
of guilt, it is also aware that in cases of bribery and
match-fixing direct evidence is hard to come by. One has to
draw inferences and rely on expert opinion. As such for the
offence of bringing a player's own name (as an international
representative of the nation) and that of the Pakistan
Cricket team giving a censure and lower levels of
punishment, this commission will look at the allegations in
their totality too. That is to say that while the commission
needs to be certain that a person fixed a particular match
or attempted to fix that match in order to recommend a ban
and criminal charges, if a person appears on the totality of
allegations against him to be, on the balance of
probabilities (on the civil standard) to be involved in
suspicious activities, the lesser penalties such as a
censure, fine and an order for the player to be kept under
observation can be set-out.

9.As such, it is believed that in the instance of persons upon
whom doubt has been shed by a number of their own
colleagues, grounds for investigation ought to be of a lower
standard. In light of the fact that several of the managers
who may be termed experts on cricket opined that there was
match-fixing, while the Commission does not believe a
finding of guilt can be established, the Commission does
believe such evidence can be grounds for censure, further
investigation of finances, and recommendation of keeping the
accused under observation. Herein, players against whom
there seems to be a trend of allegations but no solid proof
for individual instances, can be chastised.



The cut-off point (added after this enquiry had been going
on for a year)

10.The primary emphasis of investigation by this Commission as
will be seen has been around the two names that have been
brought up the most, Salim Malik and Wasim Akram. However,
other names also appeared either having been brought up by
people called or those that have cast suspicion on
themselves by their own actions or through Rashid Latif's
tapes. As a consequence of these other leads and names, this
inquiry has grown and grown as the commission has sought to
pursue more and more leads. More and more time has been
taken and extensions have been sought from the Federal
Government.

11.In all of this, the commission has been aware that its
report has been dubbed 'much-delayed' in the public.
Therefore, a cut-off point needed to be settled, so as not
to leave players and the public in suspense. The pressure
the players have been kept under now for a year would be too
unfair to continue. This cut-off point has been set at
before the team leaves for the Sharjah and Australia tour,
when the sixth extension for this commission expires. As
such this commission closes its inquiry on the 30th of
September, 1999. The Report will be submitted before the
team leaves for Sharjah.

12.(Note dated 30th of September, 1999) Due to the cut-off
point, certain leads were not completely followed up. Some
were not followed as they were likely to provide information
already available (Dan Keisel's tape seemed to, according to
Rashid Latif, duplicate Keisel's own testimony and Aamir
Sohail's allegations) or because these leads were against
people against whom there was already sufficient evidence
(re: Saeed Anwar lead regarding Salim Malik making him an
offer from Rashid Latif's testimony.) Some leads were not
followed up against secondary players (Saeed Anwar, Basit
Ali) for their lesser involvement because there was just not
enough time. In the rush to complete the report at the end,
a vital lead against Mushtaq Ahmad (i.e. Mr. Butt) despite
best efforts was not forthcoming. This lead is currently
being chased up.

13.(Note dated 12th of October, 1999) The Federal Government
has kindly granted this Commission an extension till the
30th of October, 1999. However, this Commission, in view of
fairness to the players accused, is sending this Report on
to the Sports Minister today. Final Reports against Mushtaq
and Salim Malik will be completed by a Supplementary Report
shortly to follow.

14.Leads not followed up are listed later in the report, so
that the Patron can have them pursued if he is so minded.







PART III



EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE COMMISSION



15.The Commission started its inquiry on 9th of September 1998
and summoned various persons together with evidence
regarding the matter under reference.

16.The persons who were called to testify in this regard
included former cricketers and officials of Pakistan Cricket
Board, namely (in order of appearance):

1.Mr. Sarfraz Nawaz

2.Mr. Yawar Saeed Butt

3.Mr. Arif Ali Khan Abbasi

4.Mr. Javed Burki

5.Mr. Basit Ali

6.Mr. Haroon Rashid

7.Mr. Salim Malik

8.Mr. Ijaz Ahmad

9.Mr. Rameez Raja

10.Mr. Aaqib Javaid

11.Mr. Ata-ur-Rehman

12.Dr. Amir Aziz

13.Dr. Zafar Altaf

14.Mr. Aamir Sohail

15.Dr. Dan Keisal

16.Mr. Wasim Akram

17.Mr. Waqar Younus

18.Mr. Rashid Latif

19.Mr. Intikhab Alam

20.Mr. Saleem Pervez

21.Mr. Khalid Mahmood

22.Mr. Saeed Anwar

23.Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad

24.Mr. Inzamam-ul-Haq

25.Mr. Imran Khan

26.Mr. Javed Miandad

27.Mr. Majid Khan

28.Mr. Saqlain Mushtaq

29.Mr. Moin Khan

30.Mr. Shahid Afridi

31.Mr. Azhar Mahmood

32.Mr. Akram Raza

33.Mr. Zahid Fazal



1.In addition to above, following Sports Journalists were also
examined by the Commission:-



1.Ms. Fareshteh Gati-Aslam

2.Ms. Kameela Hayat

3.Mr. Imtiaz Sipra

4.Mr. Shahid Sheikh



1.Three Australian players were also examined, namely:



1.Mr. Mark Waugh

2.Mr. Mark Taylor

3. Mr. Shane Warne 



1.Various other persons have also been examined by the
Commission whose names either appeared during the course of
statements by other persons or whose names appeared in
newspapers or other media during the course of investigation
by the Commission. In this regard the following persons
appeared before the Commission:-



1.Mr. Shaukat Javed, DIG Police Lahore Range.

2.Mr. Naeem Gulzar

3.Mr. Raja Aftab Iqbal

4.Mr. Raja Zafar Ali Iqbal alias 'Jojo'

5.Mr. Zia-ul-Haq, son of Ata-ul-Haq 

6.Mr. Chaudhry Muhammad Khalid

7.Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Ghani

8.Mr. Muneeb-ul-Haq son of Atta-ul-Haq

9.Mr. Akhtar Majeed Bhatti, SHO, Qila Gujar Singh,
Lahore.

10.Mr. Aamer Malik

11.Mr. Muhammad Usman Ahmad, Executive Magistrate.

12.Mr. Muhammad Younis

13.Mr. Qaiser Ali Shah









1.Mr. Mark Waugh

2.Mr. Mark Taylor

3.Mr. Khalid Mehmood

4.Mr. Aamir Sohail

5.Mr. Rashid Latif 

6.Mr. Saleem Pervez 

7.Mr. Muhammad Younis

8.Mr. Javed Miandad

9.Mr. Wasim Akram

10.Mr. Inzamam-ul-Haq

11.Mr. Ata-ur-Rehman

12.Mr. Aaqib Javed

13.Mr. Salim Malik

14.Mr. Waqar Younus

15.Mr. Akram Raza

16.Mr. Saeed Anwar

17.Mr. Zahid Fazal

18.Mr. Shane Warne.



1.The first person to appear before the Commission of Inquiry
was former cricketer Sarfraz Nawaz. Sarfraz Nawaz was of the
opinion that betting on cricket started in 1979-80 when
Pakistan was on the tour of India under the captaincy of Mr.
Asif Iqbal. He was of the opinion that this spread to
Sharjah and it was from there that match-fixing started on a
larger scale. He was of the opinion that the 1987 World Cup
semi final against Australia at Lahore was fixed and the
main culprits were Javed Miandad and two other players. In
1993-94, Sarfraz Nawaz deposed that he was informed by Ch.
Khalid alias Gitti in the presence of Manzoor alias Churra
and Aslam Shami that Salim Malik was called to Lahore during
the tour of Sri Lanka and the match was fixed. Mr. Salim
Malik was allegedly paid Rs.40 lacs for fixing this match.
In this match Pakistan were 79/1 at one stage but were all
out for 149, which clearly showed the mala-fides of the
players, according to Mr. Nawaz, and that they were playing
under some pre-arranged scheme. Mr. Sarfraz Nawaz was also
of the view that the brothers of Salim Malik and Wasim Akram
were bookies and the same could be judged by comparison of
their assets. He also opined that Mr. Ijaz Ahmad and Salim
Malik were involved in gambling at the domestic level too.
In October, 1994 in a match between National Bank and Habib
Bank, Salim Malik was paid Rs. 10 Lacs. 

2.The next person to appear was Ms. Fareshteh Gati-Aslam,
Sports Journalist for "The News". Ms. Gati-Aslam was of the
view that Wasim Akram, Salim Malik and Ijaz Ahmad were
primarily responsible for match-fixing. She deposed that,
according to her, match-fixing started during the English
tour of 1992. Similarly, in New Zealand during the last test
match and the last one day, the players performed so badly
that it made her feel that match-fixing was taking place. It
may be mentioned here that Ms. Gati-Aslam refers to the same
match in which Ata-ur-Rehman has given a sworn affidavit to
the effect that he was asked by Wasim Akram to bowl badly
during the test match at Christ Church, New Zealand (Exh.
2). Ms. Gati also deposed that the 1996 World Cup's
Quarter-Final between India and Pakistan at Bangalore was
fixed and that Mr. Dan Keisel, the Physiotherapist, had
informed her that Wasim Akram was faking his shoulder
injury. She also deposed that Aaqib Javed had been asked to
take Rs. 50 lacs and a Pajero by Mr. Saleem Pervez of the
National Bank of Pakistan so that he could also be one of
the members on the take and be included in the National
team. When Aaqib refused, he got an indirect message from
Wasim Akram that he would never be included in the team
while Wasim Akram was the captain. According to her, the
following players were clean:-

1.Mr. Rashid Latif

2.Mr. Azhar Mahmood

3.Mr. Shoaib Akhtar

4.Mr. Aamer Sohail; and other junior players.

1.The next to appear was Mr. Yawar Saeed who was the manager
of the team in 1996-97. He was of the view that all the
members of the team showed 100% commitment and were not
involved in match-fixing.

2.Mr. Arif Ali Abbasi, the longest serving official of the
Pakistan Cricket Board, was next to appear. He deposed that
rumors about match-fixing started in 1979 during the
captaincy of Asif Iqbal. He alleged that there was a bet on
"who will win the toss" and further alleged that the
Pakistan Captain having tossed the coin in the air, informed
the Indian Captain that the latter had won the toss before
the coin landed on the ground. Mr. Arif Ali Abbasi was of
the opinion that apart from this there were no signs of
match-fixing or gambling. During his tenure in the Ad-hoc
Committee, there was a revolt against Wasim Akram and he was
removed as Captain. Mr. Majid Khan was made the Manager. Mr.
Majid Khan had received telephone calls during the South
African tour that the players were throwing away their
matches. Then started the tour of Sri Lanka. In that tour,
Mr. Intikhab Alam alleged that Mr. Basit Ali, a test player,
had confessed before him that he had indulged in
match-fixing. Then came the tour of Zimbabwe and South
Africa. Salim Malik was the Captain. Mr. Arif Abbasi found
that the team's performance was questionable and the Ad-hoc
Committee requested to go to South Africa and investigate.
Saleem Altaf, who was a Member of the Selection Committee,
was sent to South Africa but came back with nothing to
report. Before the Zimbabwe series, Australian cricket team
came to Pakistan and played in three test matches. No
allegation was made during this tour. However, four or five
months later, a senior Australian journalist, Phil Wilkins
informed Mr. Arif Abbasi that three players had signed
affidavits against the Pakistani Captain Salim Malik
accusing him of trying to bribe the Australians to lose the
first test match in Karachi. Justice Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim
was appointed to investigate into this matter. However,
because of lack of evidence, Justice Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim
announced his judgement that Salim Malik was not guilty.
During his tenure, Mr. Arif Abbassi maintained that he never
came across any proof against any player including Salim
Malik, Wasim Akram and Ijaz Ahmad. He also maintained that
before going to India, Mr. Wasim Akram was nursing an injury
and had a bandaged arm and ribcage. Also that after the
retirements of Rashid Latif and Basit Ali, Mr. Intikhab Alam
was given a show-cause notice after the Zimbabwe tour for
not reporting the allegation against Basit Ali.

3.Mr. Javed Burki, who was Chairman of the Selection Committee
from 1989 to September, 1992 and Chairman of the Ad-hoc
Committee of PCB in 1994 also appeared. He was asked by the
President of Pakistan to look into the allegations
surrounding Pakistani cricket team. The Vice-Captain Mr.
Rashid Latif, had accused Mr. Salim Malik of match-fixing
during the South African tour in 1995. During his stay in
Harare, Rashid Latif personally informed Mr. Burki that
Salim Malik and other members of the team - although he did
not name them - were indulging in match-fixing. Mr. Burki
stated that when he was leaving the Board to the new set up,
he had recommended that Salim Malik should never play for
Pakistan again and that Ijaz Ahmad and Wasim Akram should be
warned. He said he was sure that match-fixing and betting
was going on in the Pakistani cricket team. During the
Singer Trophy in Sri Lanka and in the summer of 1994, these
allegations first appeared in the Press and there were
detailed articles in the Friday Times regarding the match
that was thrown away in Sri Lanka. During that tour, Salim
Malik rung up Mr. Burki and asked for permission to fly to
Pakistan so that he could attend a wedding ceremony. Mr.
Burki gave him permission but it was alleged that during his
visit he struck a deal with Mr. Khalid Gitti to fix one of
the matches in the Singer Trophy. Although Saeed Anwar
deposed to him that he was asked not to play well during
this match, Anwar never made the statement in writing. In
the reception arranged by the President's House in honor of
Australian and Pakistani, Salim Malik is stated to have
offered bribes to two Australian cricketers Mr. Mark Waugh
and Shane Warne. Mr. Burki was of the opinion that the
allegations were made public by the Australians after our
own Vice Captain, Mr. Rashid Latif, accused his Captain for
match-fixing. The person who claimed to have had direct
knowledge of match-fixing was named by Mr. Javaid Burki as
Mr. Naeem Gulzar, c/o Lahore Gymkhana. 

4.Next to appear was Ms. Kamala Hayat who was working as a
journalist in England. She had also traveled to South
Africa. She claimed that an English man by the name of David
Minro had over-heard three Pakistani cricketers namely
Mushtaq Ahmad, Wasim Akram and Ijaz Ahmad discussing amongst
themselves that the next match in England was fixed and this
match was later lost by Pakistan. She also deposed that she
had no direct evidence in her possession.

5.Next to appear was Mr. Basit Ali who was a member of the
Pakistani squad from 1993 to 1995. Mr. Basit deposed that he
received a call at 8:00 a.m., a day before the Final of the
Australasia Cup in Sharjah in 1994, made by a person by the
name of Raqeeb who offered him Rs. 10 Lacs if he would get
himself out for less than 10 runs. According to Mr. Basit
Ali, he informed the Manager, Mr. Intikhab Alam, who called
Mr. Basit and the rest of the Pakistani Cricket team to his
room at 1:00 p.m. to swear on the Holy Quran that they would
perform to their best. 

6.During the tour of South Africa, Mr. Basit Ali saw the
renowned bookie Mr. Haneef Cadbury going into the room of
certain players. When Aaqib Javed protested to Intikhab
Alam, Ijaz Ahmad said that he could not be asked not to see
old friends. During the Final, an altercation took place
between Salim Malik and Rashid Latif. Salim Malik had
apparently decided to bat first in conditions which were
favorable for fielding. Mr. Basit Ali stated that he himself
had never indulged in match-fixing. Mr. Basit Ali also said
that because of the circumstances created by Salim Malik and
the management, he had to resign. 

7.Haroon Rasheed, who is a former member of Pakistan cricket
team and was appointed as Coach also appeared. Haroon
Rasheed was of the opinion that some matches, including the
One Day between Pakistan and Sri Lanka in Colombo in Asia
Cup 1997, were fixed. 

8.Similarly, in the home One Day series against India at
Karachi in 1997, Saqlain Mushtaq gave away 17 runs in the
last over. This kind of bowling, according to Haroon
Rasheed, was not expected from the caliber of Saqlain
Mushtaq and Haroon Rasheed was of the opinion that this
match was fixed too. 

9.Haroon Rasheed was of the opinion that the test match played
at Faisalabad against South Africa was also fixed when
Pakistan were all out for 116 chasing a target of 144 runs
in the second innings. Haroon Rasheed also accused Wasim
Akram of changing the batting order during various
competitions including Pakistan's Independence Golden
Jubilee. Wasim Akram, according to Haroon Rasheed, would
promote himself ahead of Moin Khan and Azhar Mahmood, break
the momentum of the game which would result in loss. Mr.
Haroon Rasheed felt that the main culprits were Wasim Akram,
Ijaz Ahmad and Salim Malik.

10.Next to appear was the former Pakistani Captain Salim Malik.
He said that he was exonerated by the inquiry conducted by
Justice (Retd) Fakhr Uddin G. Ibrahim. As such, allegations
against him including the one's leveled by the Australians
were false and baseless. He admitted that an altercation had
developed between him and Rashid Latif on the issue of who
should bat first after winning the toss. He was of the view
that the senior players wanted to bowl first, while Rashid
Latif insisted that we must bat. He denied that he had fixed
the final between National Bank and Habib Bank in domestic
cricket. To a question why Shane Warne had accused him, he
maintained that he was the only batsman in the world Shane
Warne could not get out and as such was nursing a grudge.
Regarding the statement made by Haroon Rashid against him
for fixing the match of Sahara Cup against India, he
maintained that he played with his best ability. 

11.Next to appear was Ijaz Ahmad. Mr. Ijaz Ahmad maintained
that he had never heard of match-fixing or betting. When
reprimanded, he admitted that Rashid Latif and Basit Ali had
resigned during the South African tour because of some
allegations. He also admitted that he had sworn on the Holy
Quran when Intikhab Alam called him. He said, he never knew
of any bookie named Hanif Cadbury or Khalid Gitti. He
maintained that as he was related to Salim Malik,
allegations against him were there. 

12.Next to appear was Rameez Raja, former Captain of the
Pakistani Team. He maintained that the only incident in his
entire career when the players were accused of match-fixing,
was during the tour of Sri Lanka in 1994. 

13.Next to appear was the Sports Editor of the Daily "The News"
Mr. Imtiaz Sipra. He maintained that he did not come across
any player indulging in match-fixing.

14.Aaqib Javed was next to appear before this Commission of
Inquiry. He affirmed the assertions that he had received a
telephone call from an unknown person in Sri Lanka asking
him to contact Saleem Pervez who was allegedly a bookie and
receive a sum of Rs. 15 Lacs and a vehicle. He also
maintained that he saw one Hanif Cadbury freely mixing with
players during the South African tour. He also affirmed that
he had received a message indirectly from Wasim Akram that
as he was not part of the game, he would never play cricket
till Wasim Akram was captain. Aaqib Javed maintained that
one of his friends Naeem Gulzar c/o Lahore Gymkhana had some
information regarding match-fixing. He also affirmed that an
oath was taken on the Holy Quran at the insistence of Mr.
Intikhab Alam. He accused Wasim Akram and Salim Malik of
being the main culprits. 

15.Next to appear was Ata-ur-Rehman who played for the Pakistan
cricket team from 1992 to 1994. He denied that he had made a
statement against Wasim Akram before the Probe Committee.
However, when the statement was produced before him, he
changed his story the next day and confirmed in camera the
affidavit that was given by him. According to the affidavit,
he was asked to bowl badly by Wasim Akram during the final
One Day match at Christ Church. For this, Wasim Akram gave
him Rs. 100000/-. However, he maintained that because he was
threatened with dire consequences in Manchester, he changed
his story under coercion. He also maintained that Wasim
Akram paid the air ticket from New Castle to Manchester. He
also said that Khalid Mahmood, CHAIRMAN PCB asked him, to
retract from his statement. Ata-ur-Rehman, however, in his
subsequent cross examination by Wasim Akram retracted from
the statement he made against him and said that statement
containing allegations against Akram was false.

16.Mark Waugh, the member of the Australian cricket team who
was present in Pakistan, also appeared. He maintained that
Mr. Salim Malik approached him during the Presidential
reception in 1994 to lose the first test in return for US
$200,000. When the offer was made, Shane Warne was standing
next to him. He also confirmed that he had given an
affidavit to this effect later on.

17.Mark Taylor also appeared. He produced a written statement
which stated that he informed the manager Colin Edgar, and
Mr. Bob Simpson about the incident soon after the game.
Statement produced as Exhibit-3.

(More details of the Australian evidence below at
paragraphs: 96-110.)

18.Next to appear was Mr. Zafar Altaf, Member of the Ad-hoc
Committee during 1994. He deposed that the only evidence
that was brought before him was by the Chairman, Zulfiqar
Ali Bokhari which were two bank statements of 6000 Dirhams
in a bank account in Sharjah belonging to Mr. Salim Malik.
He strongly refuted the allegations against Wasim Akram,
Ijaz Ahmad and Salim Malik. 

19.Next to appear was Mr. Shaukat Javed, DIG Police, Lahore. He
confirmed that he investigated the matter of the kidnapping
of Mr. Wasim Akram's father. The culprits, who were later
apprehended by the police were, investigated and it was
found that Wasim Akram or his father had nothing to do with
betting or match-fixing. The DIG was asked to produce the
two bookies, Mr. Zafar Ali alias Jojo and someone by the
name of Raja. 

20.Next to appear was Mr. Aamir Sohail, the former Pakistani
Captain who did not say very much. At that time the
Zimbabwean tour was on and he was captaining the National
team. (He also subsequently reappeared of his own accord and
maintained that there were a large number of allegations of
match-fixing and betting during the South African tour.) He
stated that as the Pakistan Cricket Board was not doing
anything, he decided to go to the Press. He confirmed that
he was approached during the Singer Trophy in Sri Lanka and
offered Rs. 10 Lacs. He maintained that he was informed five
minutes before the start of the Bangalore Quarter Final that
he was supposed to lead the team. He maintained that this
was not normal practice and that he was sure Wasim Akram
would play. Aamir Sohail was subsequently cross-examined by
counsels for Wasim Akram and Salim Malik. He stuck to his
earlier statement.

21.Next to appear was Dr. Dan Keisel, the Physiotherapist of
the Pakistani cricket team. He confirmed that Wasim Akram
was injured during the match against India at Bangalore and
was treated with anti-inflammatory drugs. When questioned
whether Wasim Akram was fit to play, he maintained that that
question was for Mr. Wasim Akram to decide. He also stated
that he had asked Wasim to come to him for treatment later.
He was not sure if Wasim did.

22.Next to appear was the Captain of the current Pakistani team
Wasim Akram. He confirmed that he was unfit for the match
against India at Bangalore. He refuted the allegations
leveled against him by Ata-ur-Rehman and maintained that he
never offered any money to him. He confirmed that Zafar Ali
alias Jojo was his neighbor but was not aware whether he was
a bookie. He refuted the allegations that his brother was a
bookie and maintained that his brother worked at a show room
by the name of Madina Motors. He maintained that Salim Malik
was one of the best batsmen in the world. He felt that the
attitude of Majid Khan, Chief Executive was antagonistic and
on no occasion was his performance appreciated by him. Wasim
Akram also subsequently appeared on 3rd September, 1999 in
which he answered allegations against the team made by Javed
Miandad during the Sharjah Trophy which is dealt with
separately.

23.Next to appear was Mr. Naeem Gulzar who was mentioned by Mr.
Aaqib Javed and Javed Burki. He deposed that all cricketers
were his friends. He said that Salim Malik and Ijaz Ahmad
were involved in match-fixing and betting. However, he had
no proof.

24.Next to appear was Waqar Younis who maintained that he had
no knowledge of match-fixing and betting. He clarified that
he had received no money or car from any person and
maintained that the statement by Mr. Aaqib Javed was not
correct. He also confirmed that the members had decided to
take oath on the Holy Quran before the start of the match.
This was due to Rashid Latif who felt that players were
throwing away matches. Aaqib Javed was subsequently recalled
and subjected to cross-examination on the 3rd September,
1999 by counsel for Waqar Younis. Aaqib reaffirmed that
Waqar had received a car from a bookie. He named the car
also Pajero Inter Cooler.

25.Next to appear was Raja Aftab Iqbal, the elder brother of
Zafar Iqbal alias Jojo. He confirmed that he was friendly
with Wasim Akram, Ijaz Ahmad and Salim Malik. He also stated
that he would occasionally bet at Carry Home Restaurant and
Star Video in Gulberg. 

26.Zafar Iqbal alias Jojo also appeared. He maintained that he
had never traveled with the Pakistani team abroad. He also
maintained that his brother does not involve in betting and
match-fixing. At this stage it was felt that the witness was
making a wrong statement as his brother, who had appeared
earlier, admitted Zafar Iqbal alias Jojo made bets. He was
charged with perjury and a notice was issued U/s 476 of the
CPC.

27.Rashid Latif was the next to appear. He maintained that
before the fifth One Dayer at Christ Church, he was called
by Salim Malik to his room and offered 10 Lacs to throw away
the match. There were five other cricketers present in the
room. However, he refused to take up the offer. Pakistan,
according to Rashid Latif deliberately lost the match. He
added that the main culprits were Wasim Akram and Salim
Malik. Rashid Latif also confirmed that this was the same
match regarding which Ata-ur-Rehman had given an affidavit.
He also maintained that Wasim Akram declared himself unfit
before the first ball was bowled and as such was feigning
injury. In August, 1994, Rashid Latif informed the Court
that Saeed Anwar was approached by Salim Malik and was asked
to throw away the Singer Trophy match. However, as Saeed
Anwar was very close to Rashid Latif, he was informed of the
offer. During this match, mobile phones were freely used by
Waqar Younis, Wasim Akram and Salim Malik. During the 10 day
gap between the Singer Trophy held in Sri Lanka and the tour
of Sharjah, he flew back with Salim Malik to Pakistan. Salim
Malik's luggage was lost and Mr. Rashid Latif was asked to
look for it. The bag was found by Rashid Latif. In his bag,
Mr. Salim Malik had 50,000 Sri Lankan rupees in cash which,
according to Rashid Latif, was the money Salim Malik had won
because of match-fixing and betting. Mr. Rashid Latif also
maintained that the cricket players gamble amongst
themselves and place heavy bets against each other. Rashid
Latif confirmed that Saleem Pervez, the former opening
batsman of National Bank was a bookie and was seen freely
mixing with the players in their hotel rooms. He also
confirmed that he had informed Arif Abbasi about the
incident. Rashid Latif also confirmed that he had an
altercation with Salim Malik during the South African tour
as Malik was putting the other team i.e. South Africans to
bat when conditions were optimal for batting. He maintained
that Salim Malik, when asked, he refused to take an oath on
the Holy Quran that the match was fixed. He maintained that
he had accused Salim Malik of match-fixing because he
himself had been offered money. He maintained that things
had gotten so bad that he had to call Arif Abbasi and ask
him to come to South Africa. However, Mr. Saleem Altaf was
sent. Due to the circumstances prevailing, Rashid Latif
decided not to play any longer and announced his retirement.
He also produced copies of the cheques issued in favour of
Salim Malik and audio cassettes containing conversations of
Ata-ur-Rehman and Saeed Anwar. 

28.Next to appear was Ch. Muhammad Khalid alias Gitti. He
refuted the allegations leveled by Mr. Sarfraz Nawaz against
him. He asserted that he had never visited or seen Salim
Malik as was suggested by certain people. He maintained that
he had never given Salim Malik Rs. 40 lacs.

29.Next to appear was Mr. Intikhab Alam, the former Manager. He
has been associated with the game for nearly 17 years. He
maintained that during the 1994 Final at Sharjah, he started
receiving phone calls that the match was fixed. As such he
assembled the cricketers and asked them to take an oath on
the Holy Quran. He maintained that he was suspicious of the
Final that took place in Sharjah against Australia and he
called Waqar Younis, Salim Malik and Basit Ali to his room.
These were the three players who he suspected were involved.
According to him, Basit Ali confessed before him that he had
indulged in match-fixing. Further Mr. Intikhab Alam stated
that Asif Iqbal, the former Pakistani Captain was linked
with bookies. Mr. Intikhab Alam also felt that this last
match at Christ Church against New Zealand was fixed. He
confirmed that there were rumors during the Mandela Cup
final in South Africa that the Pakistani Team was going to
lose the match. He stated that an anonymous person called
him and alleged that the seven players namely Salim Malik,
Wasim Akram, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Basit Ali, Ijaz Ahmad, Mushtaq
Ahmad, Moin Khan and Waqar Younis had sold themselves.
During the Zimbabwean Tour the allegations that Salim Malik
had offered bribes to two Australian players also came up.
Mr. Intikhab Alam opined that to fix a match at least five/
six players need to be involved. When asked about the
players who he thought were absolutely clean he named Rameez
Raja, Aaqib Javed and Aamir Sohail. He confirmed that Salim
Pervez was staying in the same Hotel as the cricketers in
their tour of Sri Lanka in 1994. Finally, Mr. Intikhab Alam
maintained that betting and match-fixing had taken place
during his tenure as Manager.

30.Salim Pervez alias Paijee appeared before this Inquiry and
confessed that he himself had handed Salim Malik and Mushtaq
Ahmad $ 100,000 to throw away the final in Sharjah against
Australia. He stated that the two players had contacted him
directly in this connection and had asked for a larger
amount but settled for $ 100,000. This match was lost by
Pakistan. He confirmed that he was present in Sri Lanka
during the Singer Trophy. He was also of the view that the
team deliberately lost the Mandela Trophy in South Africa
and the Quarter Final in Bangalore. He suspected that Ijaz
Ahmad had sold himself during the match in Bangalore. Salim
Pervez was subsequently summoned and faced
cross-examination. He was first cross examined by Mr. Azmat
Saeed, counsel for Malik and later by Mr. Mozamal Khan,
counsel for Mushtaq Ahmad. In his cross-examination, Salim
Pervez elaborated his statement and stated that he was
accompanied by one Mr. Butt who was the main man. He, in
reply to a question said that US$ 100,000 were taken by him
in his inner garments (underwear) and that he had earlier
met Mushtaq Ahmad in Shalimar Hotel, Gulberg.

31.Next to appear was Mr. Khalid Mahmood, Chairman, Pakistan
Cricket Board. Mr. Khalid Mahmood deposed that he could not
say with certainty that match-fixing took place or not but
he opined that he was certain that one day international at
Nottingham in 1992 was not fixed. He stated that there was a
consistent pattern of accusing the Pakistani cricketers of
match-fixing whenever the team was faring well. When asked
whether he had any explanation for the allegations leveled
by the Australian Team he deposed that the Australian
Cricket was known for indulging in tactics like terrorizing
the opposition in and off the field which they called
"sledging". He hoped that the matter would be resolved once
and for all by this Commission of Inquiry. 

32.Next to appear was Saeed Anwar. Saeed Anwar deposed that he
never indulged in match-fixing and the statement of Rashid
Latif to this effect was wrong. He confirmed that he had
appeared before the Probe Committee and given a statement.
He denied ever speaking to Mr. Javed Burki regarding the
Singer Trophy in Sri Lanka. He felt that he was
misunderstood by Mr. Burki. 

33.Next to appear was Mushtaq Ahmad. He confirmed that Salim
Pervez was staying in the same hotel as the cricket team and
that he knew Salim Pervez. He denied that he had taken money
from Saleem Pervez but said that his performance in the said
match was very good. When questioned as to how he knew which
match the counsel was referring to Mushtaq Ahmad had no
answer.

34.Inzamam-ul-Haq also appeared. In his view the Singer Trophy
match against Australia in Sri Lanka was not fixed.
Inzamam-ul-Haq confirmed that an altercation had taken place
during the South African tour between Captain and Vice
Captain but he felt that no match-fixing takes place in
Pakistan.

35.Mr. Imran Khan, former Captain, also appeared before this
Commission of Inquiry. He felt that match-fixing had taken
place in Pakistani cricket but apart from what Ata-ur-Rehman
had told him he had no information regarding match-fixing.
Mr. Imran Khan maintained that the involvement of the
Captain is imperative if match-fixing is to take place
because guaranteeing the results of the match cannot be
without the knowledge or consent of the Captain. Mr. Imran
Khan also maintained that Intikhab Alam was a decent person
and should be believed. He suggested that any one found
guilty of match-fixing, should be banned for life and fines
should be imposed on them. 

36.Mr. Javed Miandad, former Captain also appeared before this
Commission of Inquiry. He stated that he knew Saleem Pervez
and had also heard that Saleem Pervez had paid money to some
Pakistani players. He also maintained that the Australians
were speaking the truth. He suggested that the culprits be
punished sternly and be banned for life. He stated that
during the Singer Trophy match in 1994, the conduct of
Pakistani team was suspicious and he felt that they were
involved. He stated that once Mushtaq Ahmad had confessed to
him about his involvement in match-fixing. He also stated
that senior players had been influencing younger players in
order to persuade them to indulge in match-fixing and those
who did not agree, were put out of the team. 

37.Javed Miandad was again called by the Commission in August
1999 to ask him as to why he had resigned as Coach of
Pakistan team after its tour of Sharjah in 1999. He appeared
before the Commission and after some hesitation stated that
during the Pakistan match with England at Sharjah, he had
received a phone call from someone apparently reliable and
whom he did not want to name, who said that the match was
fixed. That person told Miandad that Shahid Afridi, Moin
Khan, Azhar Mahmood, Salim Malik, Inzamam-ul-Haq had taken
money to 'box' the match. He even made Wasim Akram talk to
the man. Miandad says he was furious at the team during
lunch and say that England who were earlier 40/5 had scored
206. He further went on to state that before he knew what
was happening, five of his batsmen were out and the entire
team got out for about 135 runs in the 35th over without
playing 50 overs. 

38.The said five players were then summoned by the Commission
on the 3rd September, 1999. All these players denied
match-fixing and on the contrary said it was because of
Javed Miandad's allegations against them coupled with his
extremely aggressive behaviour that they got upset and could
not play properly and lost the match. They further stated
that earlier on two different occasions, Javed had accused
the team of match-fixing, once in Canada (Sahara Series) and
once in Mohali (India) but on both those occasions Pakistan
won the match. 

39.Wasim Akram also appeared and explained the Sharjah match.
He said he did talk to someone called Dawood Ibrahim on the
phone, who told him that the match had been fixed. He asked
Wasim to make the boys take oath on Holy Quran, which Wasim
did not because Holy Quran was not available on the ground
at that time. 

40.Next to appear was the former Pakistani Captain and the
recent Chief Executive of the Pakistan Cricket Board, Mr.
Majid Khan. Mr. Majid Khan had been instrumental in the
appointment of this Commission of Inquiry. Mr. Majid Khan
deposed that after the disappointing performance of the
Pakistani team in the Independence Cup Quadrangular matches,
he confronted Haroon Rasheed. Mr. Haroon Rasheed maintained
that if the Captain Wasim Akram was not interested in
winning the matches, he, Haroon, should not be blamed. Mr.
Majid Khan, produced exhibits which showed that Mr. Wasim
Akram was promoting himself in the batting order, which was
resulting in breaking the momentum and the slowing of the
run rate. When Wasim Akram was confronted by Majid Khan,
Wasim Akram replied that he was not aware of the in form
batsman and the out of form batsman and that he would
rectify the mistake. During the matches in Sharjah, the same
mistake was repeated by Wasim Akram. He would promote
himself in the batting order instead of Azhar Mahmood and
Moin Khan. Mr. Majid Khan maintained that the exemplary
punishment should be given to all those who were involved in
match fixing so that an example could be set for others. He
also suggested that investigating agencies should
investigate the assets of the Players.

41.Next to appear was Saqlain Mushtaq, who refuted the
allegations against him given by the Coach Haroon Rasheed.
He maintained that he gave away 15 runs in the last over
because he was asked to bowl with a new ball. This was
because the white ball had to be changed because of
visibility problems. Since no old ball was available, a new
ball was given after rubbing off its shine which created
difficulties for the spinners and for that reason, he could
not contain the batsman.

42.Finally Aamir Sohail appeared again and produced the
original affidavit sworn by Ata-ur-Rehman. Aamir Sohail
maintained that during the Singer Trophy, Saleem Pervez had
also come into his room and implied that he wanted to buy
over Aamir Sohail. During the said match, a message was sent
through Zahid Fazal, the 12th man and Saeed Anwar
immediately retired hurt. At the time, there was no apparent
reason for Saeed Anwar to leave the field. During the South
African tour, Saeed Anwar was not in good form and was not
making runs. When asked about his poor form, he replied that
curse had come to him from God as he had been indulged in
match-fixing. Aamir Sohail told him to pray for forgiveness
and pay some "Kuffara".

43.According to Sohail, during the World Cup Quarter-Final,
Wasim Akram went to a Night Club just before the Bangalore
match against India. When Aamir Sohail asked Wasim Akram
about his fitness, Wasim said he was fit to play and that he
would not miss such a crucial match. Aamir Sohail maintained
that there is a team meeting before all important matches,
but that no such meeting took place for this all important
quarter final. 

44.Before the Australasia Cup Final in 1994, Aamir Sohail
maintained that he received a call from an Indian bookie who
offered him Rs. 25 Lacs for getting himself out before
scoring 10 runs and also getting Saeed Anwar run out. It was
during this time that it was felt necessary for all the
members of the team to take oath on the Holy Quran. Aamir
Sohail maintained that the only reason Ata-ur-Rehman and
Rashid Latif had lost their place in the National team was
because they had exposed all the match fixers. Mr. Aamir
Sohail maintained that during the 1994 Christ Church match,
Mr. Majid Khan was very up-set about the rumours and had
banned all telephone calls going to the players directly.
This is the same match in which Ata-ur-Rehman later gave an
affidavit. Aamir Sohail maintained that match-fixing mainly
takes place in Sharjah and that Saleem Pervez had informed
him that he had paid money to Salim Malik, Mushtaq Ahmad,
Inzamam-ul-Haq and Waqar Younis. 

45.Mr. Qaiser Ali Shah, Director of the Ehtesaab Bureau
appeared and made a statement that the Bureau at the request
of the Chairman of the Adhoc Committee made an investigation
into the affairs of the Pakistani Cricket Team. The Bureau
was given two days to do this. There was a lot of hearsay
evidence, but no direct evidence available. 

The Ehtesaab Bureau Report.

46.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:

47.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.'

48.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.

49.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.

50."There are certain matches which are alleged to have been
Fixed [sic], 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."

51.'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.'

52.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:

i.short lived career and glamour

ii.uncertain future

iii.social differences among the different groups

iv.attraction from overseas families during foreign
tours

v.attempts to retain positions in the team

vi.resources and benefits are poor for the Pakistan
team, even vis-à-vis India

vii.managers are not appropriately paid and have
great financial differences vis-à-vis the
players they have to control. 

1.The team has failed to be the best it can be because of:

i.Propaganda unleashed by the losers and
international media

ii.Exploitation by the same overseas families who
served abroad and defamed the players at home

iii.Internal friction/ lobbying and the politics of
the team players

iv.Regional polarization between Lahore and Karachi

v.Professional jealousy against emerging junior
competitors

vi.Exploitation by the print media. 

1.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.



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

3.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. 

4.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. 

The Australian Evidence.

5.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.

6.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.

7.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. 

8.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.

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

a.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. 

b.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.

c.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.

d.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. 

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

1.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.

2.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:-

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

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

c.In Perth in February, 1995.

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

2.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.

3.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.

4.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.

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

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

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

b.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.

c.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.

d.Warne revealed that he was a frequent gambler.

e.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. 

f.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.

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

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

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

b.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.

c.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.

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

1.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. 



The Rashid Latif Tapes.

2.Thereafter some tapes that had been produced by Rashid Latif
were examined as were others that he submitted at later
dates. These tapes contained the following conversations:

1.Conversation between Rashid Latif and 'Basit Ali' and
'Saeed Anwar',

2.Conversation between Rashid Latif and 'Basit Ali' and
Salim Malik,

3.Conversation between Rashid Latif and 'Zia-ur-Rehman',
brother of Ata-ur-Rehman,

4.Conversation between Rashid Latif and 'Ata-ur-Rehman'
(and Ata's friend Makha),

5.Conversation between Rashid Latif and 'Saeed Anwar'
(Poor Quality)

6.Another conversation between Rashid Latif and 'Saeed
Anwar' (Poor Quality) 

7.Conversation between Rashid Latif and 'Javed Burki'

8.Conversation between Rashid Latif and 'Arif Abbassi'

9.Conversation between Rashid Latif and Khalid Mehmood

10.Conversation between Rashid Latif and 'Dan Keisel' (very
poor quality)

1.Efforts were made to authenticate these tapes, but such
technology does not seem available in Pakistan. 

2.However, these tapes do appear authentic. They contained
conversations of various lengths (possibly too long to be
manufactured) and the voices, nicknames, languages employed
in them, and the matters talked about all seem to indicate
that these were authentic. Rashid Latif has further under
oath vouched for their authenticity. However, in light of
the fact that these cannot be authenticated this Commission
will give them only reduced weight. 

3.Furthermore, a reason that makes this commission not be
completely taken by these tapes is that some of the
conversations of the tapes, when they were initially
submitted, had been edited. Initially when Rashid Latif was
asked as to why he had edited the tapes, he said because
they contained insults, etc. He was asked to produce the
original tapes nonetheless. The tapes that he submitted
showed that this was not the only reason why the tapes had
been edited. Crucially, mention of Basit Ali's involvement
in match-fixing had been totally taken out of the tape
containing conversation two (between Rashid Latif, Basit Ali
and Salim Malik) when Rashid Latif submitted it to this
Commission. Furthermore, some of Saeed Anwar's involvement
in conversation one, in getting Salim Malik to call Rashid
Latif and Basit had been cut out too. Subsequently, when
Rashid Latif was asked to name who was the 'friend'
mentioned in conversation 6, Rashid unconvincingly said it
was Aamir Sohail. It appeared clear to this commission that
the 'friend' was Saeed Anwar and the tape incriminated him
to some extent. In light of these lingering doubts, it
appeared to this commission that Rashid Latif may well have
wanted to protect his friends, Saeed Anwar and Basit Ali.
Rashid Latif may well have thought that these two can or
should be protected as they by most accounts are allegedly
one-time offenders. But that if indeed that is what
happened, was not for him to decide. 

4.When asked as to why the tapes had been initially edited,
Latif stated that the tapes had been in the safekeeping of a
relative of Basit Ali's and they had been edited by this
relative or someone for the sake of this relative of
Basit's, as the relative was a heart patient. Perhaps this
was the truth but these actions made the tapes tainted and
the Commission is also aware of the chance, albeit not a
great one, that some or all the tapes may well have been
doctored or manufactured.

5.Moreover, when Rashid Latif was thereafter asked to produce
the original copies, he produced some somewhat unedited
copies. There were some discrepancies in one of the tapes
that made us believe that the Commission was not given the
originals. 

6.Further, Rashid Latif has stated that he has not submitted
all the tapes he made as the others contained meaningless
conversation. This also presents the commission with the
possibility that the picture presented to it may well be
skewed as only certain conversations may have been submitted
to it.

7.In light of all of this, the Commission chose to give the
tapes limited weight: to use them as weak corroboration,
especially if denied, and primarily as a source of leads to
be followed.

8.Summaries of these conversations are found in the Appendix
II.



Lines of investigation arising out the tapes pursued



9.In response to the Rashid Latif tapes, the inquiry was
reopened and more people were called by the Commission.

10.First to be called was Rashid Latif. He vouched for the
authenticity of the tapes under oath. Further, he explained
the various nicknames (referred to above) used in the tapes.
He swore that the tapes were authentic and unedited [after
the 'edited out names' incident reported above.] 

11.Further, when the commission pressed Rashid Latif to name
the four players who were present when Salim Malik made him
an offer before the Christchurch match, he did name them.
They were according to him:

a.Waqar Younis,

b.Akram Raza, 

c.Inzamam-ul-Haq.

d.Basit Ali.

1.Then Ata-ur-Rehman was confronted with his cassette. He
denied that the voice he heard was his voice. He further
added that the first affidavit he had submitted had been at
the insistence of Aamir Sohail. Aamir Sohail had wanted to
become the captain of the team and so wanted to have Wasim
Akram displaced. 

2.Thereafter Salim Malik was confronted by his tape. He
accepted that the voice was his. He offered explanations for
his comments. He stated that all he had been saying in the
tape was that rather than the players falsely accusing each
other in the press, they should all get together and work
their differences out. 

3.Rashid Latif was then cross-examined by the counsels for
Wasim Akram and Salim Malik. He stated that the issue of
match-fixing first came to light when he raised it. The
first article was written by Usman Shirazi on the basis of
information supplied to him by Rashid. Salim Malik and he,
Rashid said, have different world-views but there was never
any enmity between them. Rashid noted that even when a Board
enquiry was held against Salim Malik, it was only done in
the context of the Australian allegations and Rashid was not
called. He had in fact applied to the Board in 1995, but
that is not on the record of the Board now. Then in 1997, he
made an application to the board which was received by Mr.
Majid Khan. On none of his applications an enquiry was held.
He was not even called before the probe committee. Arif
Abassi and tour mangers had been told of match-fixing by
Rashid. Saleem Altaf held an enquiry in Zimbabwe in which
Rashid was told to forget everything. Rashid asserted that
he had told Arif Abbassi everything and this can be
confirmed by the taped conversation he has submitted between
Rashid and Arif Abassi. The toss and inclusion of Akram Raza
instead of Kabir Khan was crucial. Half of the team wanted
to bat first. 

4.Basit then stated that he did not know if Basit Ali was
involved in match-fixing. Basit stated that he was friends
with all his team-mates and that it was incorrect to suggest
that he and Basit had a special relationship. Rashid
accepted that he knew tapping phones was an offence, but he
said, he did it all to reveal the truth to the public. It
was suggested to him that he was doing this because of the
Karachi-Lahore rivalry against Punjabi players. Rashid Latif
denied this. Moreover, he stated that all he was doing was
telling the truth and the Salim Malik counsel's statement
that he was harming the Pakistani name abroad was only an
unfortunate consequence. Lastly he denied any malice or lies
in his statement.

5.The four players named by Rashid Latif were called. Three
appeared. Basit Ali seemed to have been struck down with
Jaundice. Arrangements were tried to be made for his
statement to be recorded over the phone. However, those
arrangements fell through.

6.Waqar Younus re-appeared before the Commission and stated
that he did not recall a time when he was called to Salim
Malik's room for a particular purpose on the New Zealand
tour. It is incorrect to suggest that in his presence, with
Basit Ali, Inzamam-ul-Haq, and Akram Raza there, Malik
offered Rashid Latif money to throw a match. He did not
recall how many wickets he took in the match as he had
played to many matched to remember. Similarly he could not
remember whether Wasim Akram bowled in that match and also
could not recall if Wasim bowled badly deliberately. It is
true that the sky was overcast. But he could not recall if
he was told to bowl quickly so that the match would finish
before the rain. However, as they are required to bowl a
certain number of overs in an hour, the team always tries to
bowl quickly.

7.Inzamam-ul-Haq appeared and stated that he did play in the
Christchurch match. He denied there was an instance when he
was in room with Basit Ali, Akram Raza and Waqar Younis when
Malik may have offered Rashid Latif money to throw the
match. He recalled that Pakistan did lose the match, making
145 runs batting first and New Zealand reaching the target
for the loss of three wickets in 35 overs. In his view no
one bowled badly deliberately. He did not remember Wasim
Akram's performance in the match. He did recall though that
the pitch was difficult for batsmen early on. He did not
recall about the bad weather, threat of imminent rain,
bowling fast or excessive wides and no-balls. He did not
think the match was fixed as he gave 100% from his side.

8.Akram Raza was called for the first time. He under oath
stated that while he and Malik remained together most of the
time on the New Zealand tour, it is incorrect to state that
they, Waqar, Inzamam, Basit Ali and Rashid Latif were
together (in Malik's room) at any time. Moreover, it
incorrect that Rashid Latif was offered any money by Malik
in his presence. Raza accepted that he did play in the fifth
one-day and he did recall that all the one-days were low
scoring, but he does not recall who batted first. Pakistan
must have made 200 in that match. He does not recall the
weather, overcast conditions or threat of imminent rain.

9.Under cross-examination by Mr. Fazli, Akram Raza reiterated
that it is incorrect to say Malik offered Latif money in
front of him. He and Malik were team-mates in domestic
Cricket since 1986. After he left the team, Raza accepted,
he did hear of instances of incidents of match-fixing which
appeared in the press. He remembered players talking among
themselves about the allegations. He did not however recall
who were the players who were talking. He did volunteer that
there was a time when Intikhab Alam in Sri Lanka had asked
all the players not to use their mobile phones. Four or five
players had these phones. They were Salim Malik, Wasim
Akram, Basit Ali, and maybe Waqar Younis. He himself was
there in Sri Lanka too.

10.Saeed Anwar who was also called by the commission in light
of the tapes made a supplementary statement: He stated that
he remembered going to Rashid Latif once in Sri Lanka with
the apprehension that a match had been fixed. Some people
had come to Sri Lanka and there were rumors that they were
there to fix matches. Rashid told everyone in the morning
that he has heard of match-fixing and that he will not spare
anybody. Since, 1994/95, he, Saeed, has kept himself aloof
from the team in view of persistent rumors of match-fixing.
For two years he and Rashid Latif made noises about
match-fixing.