PART V

INDIVIDUALS ALLEGEDLY INVOLVED IN MATCH-FIXING

EVIDENCE, VERDICT & REASONS

14.Having carefully examined the evidence produced before the
Commission and the submissions of the learned counsels, it
is observed that there is a division of opinion between
players and persons who are or have been officials of the
Pakistan Cricket Board. Mr. Khalid Mahmood, ex-Chairman PCB,
Mr. Arif Abbasi, former Chief Executive PCB and Mr. Zafar
Altaf, former Member Ad-hoc Committee and most of the
current players have maintained that allegations of
match-fixing have no substance whatsoever. Mr. Majid Khan,
ex-Chief Executive PCB, Mr. Javed Burki, former Captain
Imran Khan and Javed Miandad, Mr. Intikhab Alam, Coach, Mr.
Haroon Rashid, Mr. Rashid Latif, Mr. Aamir Sohail, and Mr.
Aaqib Javed have stated that match-fixing has been taking
place. On the latter side, there are also the allegations of
the Australians.

15.In light of the evidence brought on record, as far as the
majority of the players, particularly the younger ones are
concerned, there is little or no evidence against them.
However, the cases of Salim Malik, Mushtaq Ahmad, and Wasim
Akram primarily are on a different footing. Other players
have also been brought in either by their own reluctance to
speak before this commission or by sub-allegations. Waqar
Younus, Basit Ali, Saeed Anwar, Akram Raza, Ijaz Ahmad and
Inzamam-ul-Haq are among these. Each is dealt with
individually below:





SALIM MALIK

16.Salim Malik was made the captain of Pakistan in 1993-94 and
had been playing for Pakistan since 1981. He is the
cricketer most accused of match-fixing.

ALLEGATION ONE: NEW ZEALAND TOUR AND CHRISTCHURCH MATCHES

17.His first tour as captain was to New Zealand in 1993-94. The
third Test in Christchurch and the fifth One-day
International at Christchurch have been mentioned as matches
that were fixed by him, along with other people, for
Pakistan to lose.

18.As regards the last test match, Intikhab Alam, Saeed Anwar
and Fareshteh Gati-Aslam have opined that that test match
was fixed. New Zealand were set 314/315 to win in the last
inning against a strong Pakistan attack which they managed.
The coach of that tour was Intikhab Alam. In his statement
Intikhab says that he has doubts about how New Zealand,
which had been losing till then, suddenly recovered to score
a big total like 316 to win the Christchurch Test. Pakistan
had won the first two Tests by margins of 5 wickets and by
an innings and 12 runs. (In fact the target had been 324.)

New Zealand v Pakistan, 1993/94, 3rd Test

Lancaster Park, Christchurch 

24,25,26,27,28 February 1994 (5-day match)

Result: New Zealand won by 5 wickets

Pakistan wins the 3-Test series 2-1

Toss: New Zealand

Umpires: RS Dunne and KT Francis (SL)

Match Referee: R Subba Row (Eng)

Test Debuts: Atif Rauf (Pak).

Men of the Match: SA Thomson and BA Young

Man of the Series: Wasim Akram 

Close of Play: 

o Day 1: Pakistan 334/7 (Basit Ali 98*, Akram Raza 27*) 

o Day 2: Pakistan 344, New Zealand 200, Pakistan 8/2 (Atif Rauf 3*, Akram Raza 2*) 

o Day 3: Pakistan 179, New Zealand 9/0 (Young 3*, Hartland 3*) 

o Day 4: New Zealand 277/4 (Young 115*, Thomson 93*) 



Pakistan 1st innings R 4 6

Saeed Anwar c Young b Doull 69 7 1

Aamer Sohail c Hartland b Doull 60 4 1

Atif Rauf c Greatbatch b Morrison 16 2 0

*Saleem Malik b Hart 18 2 0

Basit Ali c Hartland b Pringle 103 9 3

Inzamam-ul-Haq c Greatbatch b Doull 5 1 0

+Rashid Latif c Hartland b Thomson 27 2 1

Wasim Akram c Greatbatch b Morrison 5 1 0

Akram Raza not out 29 4 0

Waqar Younis c Doull b Morrison 2 0 0

Aamer Nazir b Morrison 0 0 0

Extras (lb 6, w 1, nb 3) 10

Total (all out, 97 overs) 344

FoW: 1-125 (Saeed Anwar), 2-147 (Aamer Sohail), 3-169 (Atif Rauf),

4-195 (Saleem Malik), 5-206 (Inzamam-ul-Haq),

6-254 (Rashid Latif), 7-261 (Wasim Akram), 8-339 (Basit Ali),

9-344 (Waqar Younis), 10-344 (Aamer Nazir).

Bowling O M R W

Morrison 24 3 105 4 (1nb)

Doull 25 3 93 3 (2nb)

Pringle 33 6 83 1 (1w)

Hart 9 2 37 1

Thomson 6 0 20 1

New Zealand 1st innings

BR Hartland c Basit Ali b Waqar Younis 3

BA Young lbw b Aamer Nazir 38

AH Jones run out 81

*KR Rutherford c Inzamam-ul-Haq b Waqar Younis 7

MJ Greatbatch lbw b Wasim Akram 1

SA Thomson c Rashid Latif b Waqar Younis 3

+TE Blain lbw b Waqar Younis 0

MN Hart b Wasim Akram 6

SB Doull lbw b Waqar Younis 17

DK Morrison not out 6

C Pringle b Waqar Younis 0

Extras (b 5, lb 9, nb 24) 38

Total (all out, 56 overs) 200

FoW: 1-12 (Hartland), 2-109 (Young), 3-124 (Rutherford),

4-139 (Greatbatch), 5-147 (Thomson), 6-147 (Blain),

7-171 (Hart), 8-186 (Jones), 9-198 (Doull),

10-200 (Pringle).

Bowling O M R W

Wasim Akram 22 5 54 2

Waqar Younis 19 1 78 6

Aamer Nazir 15 2 54 1

Pakistan 2nd innings

Saeed Anwar c Blain b Morrison 0

Aamer Sohail c Young b Doull 3

Atif Rauf c Young b Doull 9

Akram Raza st Blain b Hart 26

*Saleem Malik c Pringle b Morrison 23

Basit Ali run out 67

Inzamam-ul-Haq c sub (MA Qastings) b Morrison 20

+Rashid Latif c & b Hart 3

Wasim Akram b Hart 17

Waqar Younis c Blain b Morrison 10

Aamer Nazir not out 0

Extras (nb 1) 1

Total (all out, 65.3 overs) 179

FoW: 1-0 (Saeed Anwar), 2-4 (Aamer Sohail), 3-26 (Atif Rauf),

4-53 (Akram Raza), 5-77 (Saleem Malik),

6-133 (Inzamam-ul-Haq), 7-152 (Basit Ali),

8-154 (Rashid Latif), 9-171 (Wasim Akram),

10-179 (Waqar Younis).

Bowling O M R W

Morrison 21.3 5 66 4 (1nb)

Pringle 17 3 41 0

Doull 5 0 13 2

Hart 18 5 47 3

Thomson 4 0 12 0

New Zealand 2nd innings (target: 324 runs)

BA Young b Wasim Akram 120

BR Hartland c Inzamam-ul-Haq b Wasim Akram 10

AH Jones run out 26

*KR Rutherford lbw b Wasim Akram 13

MJ Greatbatch c Inzamam-ul-Haq b Waqar Younis 1

SA Thomson not out 120

+TE Blain not out 11

Extras (lb 5, nb 18) 23

Total (5 wickets, 107 overs) 324

DNB: MN Hart, SB Doull, DK Morrison, C Pringle.

FoW: 1-22 (Hartland), 2-76 (Jones), 3-119 (Rutherford),

4-133 (Greatbatch), 5-287 (Young).

Bowling O M R W

Wasim Akram 38 6 105 3 (12nb)

Waqar Younis 27 6 84 1 (3nb)

Aamer Nazir 16 0 59 0 (3nb)

Akram Raza 19 5 49 0

Aamer Sohail 2 1 5 0

Saleem Malik 4 1 13 0

Saeed Anwar 1 0 4 0



19.Moreover, regarding the 5th One-day Match at Christchurch,
Rashid Latif has deposed that before the match, Salim Malik,
the Captain of the Pakistan team, made a phone call to him
and called him to his room. There, according to Rashid
Latif, Malik offered him Rs 10 lacs for playing badly the
following day, because, he said, the team had to lose as he,
Malik, had struck a deal with some bookies. Further Latif
deposed there were four other players present in the room,
namely Waqar Younus, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Akram Raza and Basit
Ali. Three of the four have denied this; Basit Ali was not
available for comment on this particular allegation. Basit
had however stated earlier that he has never been involved
in match-fixing.

20.According to Rashid Latif, on the day of the match when
Rashid took a catch of the opener Bryan Young off Waqar
Younis, Malik reprimanded him and reiterated that 'we have
to lose the match'. In Rashid's opinion this match was lost
deliberately and the two main culprits were Wasim Akram and
Salim Malik. (It might be mentioned this is the same match
which Ata ur Rehman says Wasim Akram had fixed with Ijaz
Ahmed and Zafar Ali Jojo in Pakistan.). After looking at the
video of this match it has been noticed that wides and no
balls were given away freely by the bowlers as has been
pointed out by Rashid Latif. Rashid also noticed that the
bowling of Ata-ur-Rehman and others at crucial stages was
not according to the field placing set by captain Salim
Malik. Detail score card is as under:- 

New Zealand v Pakistan, 1993/94, 5th One-day International

Lancaster Park, Christchurch 

16 March 1994 (50-overs match)

Result: New Zealand won by 7 wickets

Pakistan wins the 5-ODI series 3-1

Toss: New Zealand

Umpires: BL Aldridge and CE King

Match Referee: R Subba Row (Eng)

Man of the Match: BR Hartland 

Pakistan innings (50 overs maximum) R 4 6

Saeed Anwar c Hart b Pringle 2

Aamer Sohail c Rutherford b Morrison 1

Inzamam-ul-Haq c Young b Pringle 4

Asif Mujtaba b Cairns 3

*Saleem Malik c Young b Cairns 15

Basit Ali c Young b Pringle 57 3 1

+Rashid Latif c Parore b Morrison 9

Wasim Akram c Parore b Larsen 7

Akram Raza not out 23

Waqar Younis c Cairns b Morrison 4

Ata-ur-Rehman not out 3

Extras (lb 6, w 8, nb 3) 17

Total (9 wickets, 50 overs) 145

FoW: 1-3 (Aamer Sohail), 2-8 (Saeed Anwar), 3-17 (Inzamam-ul-Haq),

4-19 (Asif Mujtaba), 5-45 (Saleem Malik), 6-65 (Rashid Latif),

7-86 (Wasim Akram), 8-121 (Basit Ali), 9-136 (Waqar Younis).

Bowling O M R W

Morrison 10 2 20 3

Pringle 10 1 21 3

Cairns 10 0 36 2

Larsen 10 1 21 1

Hart 4 0 17 0

Thomson 6 0 24 0

New Zealand innings (target: 146 runs from 50 overs)

BA Young c Rashid Latif b Waqar Younis 3

BR Hartland not out 68

AH Jones c Rashid Latif b Waqar Younis 1

*KR Rutherford c Akram Raza b Ata-ur-Rehman 1

SA Thomson not out 48

Extras (lb 8, w 14, nb 3) 25

Total (3 wickets, 34.1 overs) 146

DNB: CL Cairns, MN Hart, +AC Parore, GR Larsen, DK Morrison,

C Pringle.

FoW: 1-26 (Young), 2-34 (Jones), 3-45 (Rutherford).

Bowling O M R W

Wasim Akram 6.3 0 17 0

Waqar Younis 8.1 1 33 2

Ata-ur-Rehman 9 0 44 1

Aamer Sohail 4 0 18 0

Akram Raza 3.3 0 14 0

Saleem Malik 3 0 12 0

(Ata-ur-Rehman, in his first statement, had said that Wasim
Akram had paid him Rs. One Lac to bowl badly in the same
match and that Wasim had told Ata that the said match had
been fixed by Salim Malik and Ijaz Ahmad.)

ALLEGATION TWO: SINGER CUP IN SRI LANKA.



21.From New Zealand the Pakistan team's next tour was to Sri
Lanka in 1994-95. Malik was retained as captain and Pakistan
won the Test series as well as the One-day series against
Sri Lanka. After a 15 day gap Pakistan participated in the
Singer Trophy in which India, Sri Lanka and Australia also
took part. 

22.During this break Malik made a trip to Pakistan. Malik has
stated that he came back because his son was ill. The
management reports that Malik stated he had a wedding to
attend. Rashid Latif has alleged that Malik came back to
Pakistan to make a deal with bookies. Moreover, Malik has
stated that he went to Islamabad while Rashid Latif stated
that Malik did in fact come to Lahore. Rashid says he knows
so, as he helped arrange the seats and, when Malik lost his
luggage, to deal with that matter too.

23.Saleem Pervez, in his statement says he paid Salim Malik
(along with Mushtaq Ahmed) a sum of US$100,000 to drop the
Pakistan v Australia game, the second game of the Singer
Trophy. He was also cross-examined at great lengths by Salim
Malik's Counsel and he came out with further details
regarding one Mr. Aftab Butt, a bookie travelling with him.
He also stated that they stayed at the 'Taj' and also at the
'Oberoi' in Sri Lanka and that they had met Mushtaq Ahmad
three days or so prior to their departure at Shalimar Hotel,
Lahore, where the deal was struck. There were however some
material inconsistencies in Saleem Pervez' statements as
regards who carried the money and where the deal was struck
according to Malik's counsel.

Detailed scorecard is as follows:-

Singer World Series, 1994/95, 2nd Match

Australia v Pakistan

Sinhalese Sports Club Ground, Colombo 

7 September 1994 (50-overs match)

Result: Australia won by 28 runs

Points: Australia 2, Pakistan 0

Toss: Pakistan

Umpires: BC Cooray and WAU Wickremasinghe

TV Umpire: I Anandappa

Match Referee: CW Smith (WI)

Man of the Match: SK Warne 

Australia innings (50 overs maximum) R M B 4 6

*MA Taylor lbw b Wasim Akram 8 49 26 0 0

MJ Slater c Asif Mujtaba b Wasim Akram 4 20 12 0 0

DC Boon b Akram Raza 19 50 48 3 0

ME Waugh st Rashid Latif b Mushtaq Ahmed 23 66 36 1 0

SR Waugh c Rashid Latif b Mushtaq Ahmed 1 5 8 0 0

MG Bevan c Mushtaq Ahmed b Saleem Malik 37 78 73 1 0

+IA Healy not out 30 86 55 0 0

SK Warne b Wasim Akram 30 38 40 0 0

CJ McDermott not out 2 5 3 0 0

Extras (b 7, lb 9, w 9) 25

Total (7 wickets, 50 overs) 179

DNB: GD McGrath, TBA May.

FoW: 1-11 (Slater), 2-34 (Taylor), 3-48 (Boon), 4-49 (SR Waugh),

5-85 (ME Waugh), 6-128 (Bevan), 7-174 (Warne).

Bowling O M R W

Wasim Akram 10 2 24 3 (4w)

Waqar Younis 8 2 43 0

Mushtaq Ahmed 10 1 34 2 (4w)

Akram Raza 10 1 26 1

Aamer Sohail 7 0 17 0

Saleem Malik 5 0 19 1 (1w)

Pakistan innings (target: 180 runs from 50 overs) R M B 4 6

Saeed Anwar c McGrath b SR Waugh 46 130 78 5 1

Aamer Sohail b McGrath 0 8 4 0 0

Inzamam-ul-Haq st Healy b Warne 29 90 69 4 0

Basit Ali c & b Warne 0 19 13 0 0

*Saleem Malik c Taylor b SR Waugh 22 84 51 1 0

+Rashid Latif c Taylor b SR Waugh 7 15 19 0 0

Wasim Akram b McGrath 16 43 33 1 0

Akram Raza c Healy b McDermott 10 26 19 0 0

Waqar Younis c Slater b Warne 2 17 9 0 0

Mushtaq Ahmed not out 2 10 3 0 0

Asif Mujtaba not out 1 4 7 0 0

Extras (b 2, lb 5, w 6, nb 3) 16

Total (9 wickets, 50 overs) 151

FoW: 1-2 (Aamer Sohail), 2-77 (Inzamam-ul-Haq), 3-83 (Basit Ali),

4-94 (Rashid Latif), 5-124 (Wasim Akram), 6-129 (Saeed Anwar),

7-129 (Saleem Malik), 8-147 (Waqar Younis), 9-150 (Akram Raza).

Bowling O M R W

McDermott 10 2 21 1 (1w, 1nb)

McGrath 10 3 25 2 (3w)

May 10 0 53 0

Warne 10 1 29 3 (2w, 2nb)

SR Waugh 10 1 16 3



Saeed Anwar retired hurt on 43* from 80/2 to 124/5 (cramp, resumed with a runner) 

24.Rashid Latif said that Saeed Anwar had informed him that
Salim Malik had asked Anwar to play badly in Sri Lanka. He
had also told him not to disclose the existence of the offer
to Rashid Latif. Saeed Anwar has denied this.

25.Saeed Anwar got 46 off 78 balls hitting 5 fours and one six.
This was a low scoring game and Pakistan needed just 179 for
victory. Anwar retired hurt after message(s) from the
Captain were taken in by the 12th man and resumed at number
6. (The scorecard reads: Saeed Anwar retired hurt on 43*
from 80/2 to 124/5 (cramp, resumed with a runner.))

26.Manager Intikhab Alam says that after that match, when the
team went to the hotel, he received a call from a caller who
did not divulge his name but stated that he had lost Rs 40
lacs and that four to five players had sold themselves. He
called Malik, Waqar Younis and Basit Ali to his room. While
Malik and Waqar denied match-fixing, Basit said he had been
involved. 

27.Basit had scored 0 off 13 balls and had no contribution as a
fielder either.

28.Intikhab also said that Asif Iqbal had informed him that the
bookies had lost 40 lacs and wanted to recover that amount.
He said he thought Asif may have spoken to Malik and
subsequently Malik and Intikhab had a discussion about this
matter.

29.(Incidentally, this is the same match that Mark Waugh and
Shane Warne have admitted to accepting money from an Indian
bookie, 'John', to give weather and pitch information.) 

30.Aftab Butt has been sought for corroboration, but until now
his attendance despite the Commission's best efforts, has
not been possible.

ALLEGATION THREE: THE HOME SERIES AGAINST AUSTRALIA

31.After the Sri Lanka tour the Pakistan team played in a home
series against Australia in Autumn 1994.

32.Shane Warne has deposed that 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 first
Karachi Test by getting another bowler, Tim May to bowl
badly with him. He told Malik to get lost. Warne then went
back to the room and told May of the incident. May's
response to Malik's offer was the same.

33.For the Rawalpindi One-day Match, Mark Waugh has stated that
at a Presidential function he was offered a bribe to arrange
with four or five other players to throw the match for US
$200,000. At that time Shane Warne was standing next to
Waugh, within earshot. Shane Warne has confirmed that
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.

34.Both of the above incidents were reported the players to
Mark Taylor, their Captain who informed the Australian
officials on tour with them, Bob Simpson, the Coach and
Colin Egar, the manager. (Mark Taylor confirmed this when he
appeared before the Commission in Lahore in 1998.) 

35.In February, 1995, they were asked to make a short summary
of the incident. Then in Antigua, West Indies, on the 9th of
April 1995, Warne and Waugh made statutory declarations
detailing the above. These affidavits after some time were
passed by the ICC to the Pakistan Cricket Board, and
thereafter this Commission. This was after the news of the
allegations broke in an Australian newspaper, after Rashid
Latif had first made his allegations public.

36.Mark Waugh on the tour of Pakistan in 1998 made a personal
appearance before the Commission of Inquiry with his
Captain, Mark Taylor in Lahore and repeated the same
allegation. Taylor and Waugh were also cross-examined.

37.However, later the news broke that Mark Waugh and Shane
Warne themselves had earlier on the tour of Sri Lanka been
involved with a bookie, John. This had not been disclosed to
the Commission and seemed to affect the Australians'
credibility. Therefore, on the request of the ACB,
representatives of the Commission went to Australia to
cross-examine Warne and Waugh. Details of the
cross-examination have been noted above.

38.Briefly, it was confirmed by Warne and Waugh that their
dealings with John had been only for weather and pitch
information. Mr. Michael Shatin QC added in court that Mr.
Salim Malik had never confronted Mark Waugh or Shane Warne
regarding these allegations, although they had met several
times after the incident. Why not, if Malik was not guilty? 

ALLEGATION FOUR: THE SOUTH AFRICA TOUR

39.After the Australia tour in 1994-95, Pakistan's next
assignment was to South Africa for the Mandela Trophy
involving New Zealand, South Africa and Sri Lanka. They won
five of the six qualifying round games and entered the final
against South Africa. Both matches were lost under
controversial circumstances.

40.There was an open dispute within the team about the decision
of the toss. Since the matches were day/night games and the
lights in Johannesburg were not conducive to batting second,
Rashid Latif the vice-captain had strongly recommended that
if Malik won the toss Pakistan should bat first. Both times
Malik won the toss and put the opposition in and Pakistan
lost two finals matches. In cricketing terms the toss in a
day/night game is crucial as it is easier to bat first in
natural daylight than under the shadows of floodlights. Even
Wisden notes that Malik made "the puzzling decision to field
first". It was also puzzling why having batted first and
lost in the 1st final, Malik repeated the mistake two days
later in the second match as well.

41.Basit Ali says that as suspicion was rife that the matches
were fixed, Intikhab asked every player to take an oath on
the emulet that they would play the match honestly. Malik
said he would inspect the ground and then take the oath.
Before he came back into the dressing room he went for the
toss, elected to put South Africa in to bat and then asked
to take the oath by which time it was too late. (South
African captain Hansie Cronje made a statement that he was
quite surprised to be asked to bat first. Pakistan again
lost that match.)

42.It was after this tour that Rashid Latif says he announced
his retirement because the main reason was that team members
were indulging in match-fixing.

43.Salim Malik had figures of 4-0-22-0 (over 5 runs an over)
and was run out for 19 runs after staying at the wicket for
26 balls.

44.As earlier stated even Wisden says that after Malik "made
the puzzling decision to field first.' It further notes that
'From 193 for 4 they had lost their last six wickets for 22
including three run outs.'

45.To sum up: First Malik was run out for 19 off 26. Then Aamir
Sohail, who had scored 71 from 74 balls, was run out when
batting with Ijaz Ahmed. Finally Rashid Latif (17 off 31
balls) was run out when batting with Wasim Akram who scored
12 runs off 26 balls.

46.In the second final, two days later Malik again made a
controversial decision to let South Africa bat first. Wisden
says: "Again, Salim Malik asked South Africa to bat,
creating divisions in Pakistan's dressing room."



ALLEGATION FIVE: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

47.Copies of Cheques for Salim Malik were handed in by Rashid
Latif, drawn by one Caesar Fernanades in favor of Salim
Malik.

48.Aaqib Javed in his statement said that Salim Malik along
with Wasim Akram was one of the main players involved in
match-fixing. 

49.Pakistan captain Imran Khan said that the first time he
heard of match-fixing was in a domestic game which involved
Habib Bank. The captain was Salim Malik. 

50.Javed Miandad said that the domestic game Imran spoke about
involved five Habib Bank players namely Salim Malik, Ijaz
Ahmed, Nadeem Ghouri, Akram Raza and Naveed Anjum.



FINDINGS, REASONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AGAINST SALIM MALIK



51.As regards allegation ONE on its own, there is insufficient
evidence about the last Test match. All the evidence that is
available is primarily opinion and based on personal
suspicion more than anything. Counter to this opinion there
is the opinion of other commentators on the match who said
that Pakistan did not bowl badly at all (So how come the two
Ws bowled so badly today? The answer is simple. They didn't
bowl badly at all - in fact they bowled very well,
particularly early on - CricketInfo), it was just that New
Zealand batted out of their skins.

52.However, in the matter of the fifth one-day match, also at
Christchurch, there is stronger evidence. The Commission is
minded to believe Rashid Latif's testimony. However,
Rashid's testimony is unsupported by any other evidence.
Three other people who Rashid said were in the room when an
offer was made to him have denied Rashid's statement.
Therefore against four denials (Malik plus these three),
this commission finds it difficult to convict Salim Malik on
Rashid Latif's testimony alone. 

53.Looking at the match can one say that the match was fixed?
There is a chance that it was. But, that it was, cannot be
said to the requisite standard of proof. The performance of
the team was sub-par. There were misfields and there were
wides. The batting collapsed. But then again that is the
Pakistan team. The fact is that looking at the match one
cannot reach any conclusion with certainty that match was
fixed, though much can be said otherwise.

54.As regards allegation TWO alone, the Singer Trophy, the
statement of Saleem Pervez has a lot of weight. It is
acknowledged by many e.g. Rashid Latif that he was seen
mixing with the players. Pervez is named as a gambler on the
Ehtesaab Bureau report too. He has categorically stated that
he had paid Salim Malik and Mushtaq Ahmad a sum of US$
100,000 in Sri Lanka for the match of Pakistan against
Australia in September, 1994 in Singer Trophy. It is, no
doubt, true and admitted by Saleem Pervez that he has some
criminal record and that had even been involved in a murder
case but that does not mean that the man is lying.
Cross-examination of Saleem Pervez however has cast some
doubt on the testimony as there appear to be some
discrepancies as to where the match was fixed and who
carried the money. However, this commission on the whole
believes Salim Pervez.

55.Corroboration of Salim Pervez can be sought from Mr. Aftab
Butt, the person Pervez says he allegedly took with him to
deliver the money. A statement from Aftab Butt could not be
taken. He is being chased up. Allegation TWO, therefore
stands for the time being. It will be addressed in the
supplementary report that will shortly follow this Report.

56.As regards allegation THREE alone, having carefully gone
through the statements of Mark Waugh and Shane Warne, this
Commission comes to the conclusion that they have not
fabricated their statements against Salim Malik. The
cross-examination by the counsels has not been able to break
the testimony that had been made by these players in
Australia. Their version of events in believable. The 'John'
factor does not do too much damage to Warne and Waugh's
credibility. It does not absolve Salim Malik of the charges
as the Australians made the Report to their authorities soon
enough. That the news surfaced much later is not suspicious
as Malik's counsel suggested. This commission is of the same
opinion as Javed Burki when he says that the only reason the
Australians leaked the allegations to the press was that
Rashid Latif had already let the cat out of the bag. 

57.This commission finds Salim Malik guilty of attempting to
fix the Test-match that Shane Warne has stated Malik made
him and Tim May an offer for. Shane Warne's testimony has
withstood cross-examination and Tim May has indirectly
corroborated that the offer was made, or at least directly
corroborated that it was rejected on his behalf when Warne
called Malik from their room.

58.Further, as regards the offer for the Rawalpindi One-day
match, this Commission finds there to be sufficient evidence
to convict Salim Malik of match-fixing. Salim Malik made an
offer to Mark Waugh according to Waugh. Warne overheard
this. Waugh accuses, Warne corroborates. This Commission
therefore holds Malik guilty of attempting to fix the First
Test Match.

59.As regards allegation FOUR, batting first in the finals and
including Akram Raza instead of Kabir Khan, the tour report
supports Salim Malik in that all of this is the Captain's
prerogative. Intikhab Alam says that the team supported
Salim Malik. While, it is clear that all was not well on
that tour. However, in absence of stronger evidence, this
Commission cannot hold that those finals were fixed.

60.Generally, there have been a lot of general allegations
against Malik. Everyone seems to name him as the main
culprit in match-fixing. Imran Khan, Javed Miandad, his own
coaches, managers, and fellow players. Most crucially,
Malik's own vice-captain quit and alleged match-fixing
against him. Rashid Latif's allegation are very weighty
against Malik. The cheques however are not of great
probative value as they could have been given to Malik for
any number of reasons. However, if all the allegations are
taken together, in totality, Malik is clearly guilty for the
lesser level of punishments too, of bringing the name of the
team into disrepute. The lesser punishments would have been
applied to Malik if he had not already been convicted at the
higher level.

61.So, in light of the presence of evidence to support
allegation THREE, this Commission recommends that a life ban
be imposed on Salim Malik and he be not allowed to play
cricket at any level, whether for Pakistan or at the
domestic level. He should not be allowed to even associate
himself with any cricketing affairs as he may be able to
influence the new generation. This includes coaching,
managerial offices and selection committees. It is also
recommended that other suitable action whether in the form
of criminal proceedings or otherwise be taken against Salim
Malik. Moreover, an account of his finances needs to be
taken and he should be fined Rs. 10 lac. 



MUSHTAQ AHMED

62.Former Pakistan player Saleem Pervez appeared before the
Commission of Inquiry and stated that he had paid Mushtaq
Ahmed (and Salim Malik) a sum of US$ 100,000. This was for
fixing a match in Sri Lanka against Australia for the Singer
Trophy in 1994. 

The scorecard for that Singer Trophy match shows that
Mushtaq Ahmed gave away 34 runs in 10 overs, took two
wickets giving away four wides. He remained not out scoring
2 off 3 balls before the 50 overs were completed. (Full
scorecard in appendix:)

63.It was interesting that when Mushtaq Ahmed appeared before
this commission, he seemed to know already which match we
were going to ask him about. And he blurted out, 'I was OK
in that match.'

64.Former Pakistan team coach Javed Miandad said in his
statement that Mushtaq had confessed to him that he had a
one time involvement in match-fixing. 

65.Mr. Javed Burki has also stated that Mushtaq and Malik were
often seen at a Khalid Gitty's, a bookie's residence. He
added that Mr. Naeem Gulzar can confirm this. However, when
Mr. Gulzar appeared he named Malik and Ijaz as likely
culprits in match-fixing but stated he did not have any
proof. He did not deny or confirm Mr. Burki's allegations.

FINDINGS, REASONS & RECOMMENDATIONS:

66.While this Commission is minded to accept the testimony of
Saleem Pervez after he managed to withstand
cross-examination (taking note of the inconsistencies raised
by Mr. Azmat Saeed in Pervez's statements), it is difficult
to believe after looking at Mushtaq's figures, that he was
trying to throw away the match. His performance in the
context of the match was better than most. If one were to
compare this with the performance of others then it appears
difficult to hold that Mushtaq was involved in match-fixing,
not giving his best. The two wickets he took were of the
Waugh twins. This raises some doubt in my mind that Mushtaq
was involved. There is, of course, a possibility that if
Mushtaq was involved in match-fixing, he could well have
used someone else to bowl or bat badly. However, there is no
evidence to this effect.

67.There is of course as earlier mentioned one source of strong
corroboration that may be checked for support of Saleem
Pervez's testimony and that is Mr. Aftab Butt. Mr. Butt will
be examined soon and a supplementary report will be made
following up shortly on the heels of this Report.

68.While this Commission cannot for the time being make a
finding of guilt to the requisite standard because, in
fairness to Musthaq, Mr. Butt needs to be examined, there
are sufficient grounds to cast strong doubt on Mushtaq
Ahmad. He has brought the name of the Pakistan team into
disrepute with inter alia associating with gamblers. This
Commission therefore recommends that Mushtaq Ahmed be
censured, kept under close watch and be not given any office
of responsibility (selection or captaincy) in the team or on
the board. Furthermore, he should be fined Rs. 3 lac.

69.Final findings against Mushtaq on the charge of match-fixing
will soon follow in the Supplementary statement.



WASIM AKRAM



70.Wasim Akram has been the captain of the Pakistan team in
several stints from 1993 till the present.

ALLEGATION ONE: INVOLVEMENT IN ATTEMPTING TO FIX THE
CHRISTCHURCH MATCH

71.In his statement before this commission of inquiry
Ata-ur-Rehman had alleged that Wasim Akram had paid him a
sum of Rs 100,000 to bowl badly in a match in New Zealand,
in Christchurch in 1993-94. He said Akram had in fact
promised him Rs 200,000 but paid him half the amount
promising to pay the rest later if Ata continued to
cooperate. He said Akram had told him that Ijaz Ahmed had
fixed the game with Zafar Alias Jojo in Pakistan. 

72.Ata-ur-Rehman subsequently again appeared before the
Commission and stated that while he was in Newcastle,
England, Wasim Akram had asked him to see his solicitors and
sign a new affidavit (in response to Aamir Sohail's
affidavit). This affidavit was contradictory to the previous
one. He says he signed this second affidavit under coercion
and threats from Wasim Akram that he has a lot of contacts
in Pakistan and would get him fixed if he did not give the
second affidavit. Wasim Akram provided a ticket to Ata to
travel to London. The ticket was produced and the ticket,
according to Ata, was charged to Akram's credit card.
Counsel for Wasim Akram has accepted that the ticket was on
Akram's credit card.

73.Ata-ur-Rehman was subsequently recalled on the request of
Wasim Akram for cross-examination. He appeared before the
Commission on the 3rd of September, 1999. While being
subjected to cross examination he did a complete about-turn
and went back on the earlier statement. He categorically
stated that he had earlier given a false statement in which
he had involved Wasim Akram. He said he had made the said
statement under some misunderstanding. He was immediately
put on ECL (Exit Control List) and subsequently issued with
a notice for perjury.

74.Later, when Ata-ur-Rehman appeared before this Commission
again, to be issued a show-cause notice for perjury, he
stated that he had in fact been induced by Aamir Sohail to
make a statement against Wasim Akram and that the affidavit
was also given at his instance. He however reiterated that
Wasim Akram had supplied him with a ticket for travelling
from Newcastle to London and that that ticket was charged to
Wasim Akram's credit card.

75.In view of Ata-ur-Rehman's volte-face, corroboration was
sought in support of his earlier or later affidavit. In
support of the earlier affidavit, three sources presented
themselves:

a.One was Imran Khan. Imran Khan had earlier stated in his
statement that the only knowledge he had of match-fixing
was of when Ata had told him that Wasim had paid him to
throw the Christchurch match. Ata told him this after
the news about the first affidavit had broken in the
papers. Ata accepted this too.

b.The second source of corroboration was Rashid Latif. Mr.
Latif states in this Christchurch match Wasim Akram had
declared himself unfit before the Pakistanis took the
field. He was holding his shoulder as if in pain even
before the first ball was bowled. He only bowled six
overs and did not even complete his spell. According to
Latif, no balls and wides were bowled deliberately by
Wasim Akram and on at least two occasions the balls were
bowled so wide that the wicket keeper could not get to
it and the opposition got eight wides at a crucial time
in the game. These runs were given away at a time when
the weather was turning nasty and with rain imminent the
Pakistani bowlers could have saved the match but they
were bowling in such a hurry that the run rate was
accelerated and NZ won the game. In one-day cricket
bowlers never bowl bouncers as they can give away too
many runs but the Pakistani bowlers deliberately bowled
bouncers. In Rashid's opinion, as he had a clear view
from his place behind the stumps, Wasim (and Salim
Malik) were the main culprits for Pakistan's loss.

The scorecard shows that the Pakistani bowlers gave away
25 extras. (lb8, w14, nb3). Twenty five extras means not
only 25 bonus runs for the opposition but 17 no balls
and wides total means they had a gift of 17 extra
deliveries to score runs off. The detailed score card is
as follows:-

New Zealand v Pakistan, 1993/94, 5th One-day International

Lancaster Park, Christchurch 

16 March 1994 (50-overs match)

Result: New Zealand won by 7 wickets

Pakistan wins the 5-ODI series 3-1

Toss: New Zealand

Umpires: BL Aldridge and CE King

Match Referee: S Subba Jow (Eng)

Man of the Match: BR Hartland 

Pakistan innings (50 overs maximum) 

Saeed Anwar c Hart b Pringle 2

Aamer Sohail c Rutherford b Morrison 1

Inzamam-ul-Haq c Young b Pringle 4

Asif Mujtaba b Cairns 3

*Saleem Malik c Young b Cairns 15

Basit Ali c Young b Pringle 57 

+Rashid Latif c Parore b Morrison 9

Wasim Akram c Parore b Larsen 7

Akram Raza not out 23

Waqar Younis c Cairns b Morrison 4

Ata-ur-Rehman not out 3

Extras (lb 6, w 8, nb 3) 17

Total (9 wickets, 50 overs) 145

FoW: 1-3 (Aamer Sohail), 2-8 (Saeed Anwar), 3-17 (Inzamam-ul-Haq),

4-19 (Asif Mujtaba), 5-45 (Saleem Malik), 6-65 (Rashid Latif),

7-86 (Wasim Akram), 8-121 (Basit Ali), 9-136 (Waqar Younis).

Bowling O M R W

Morrison 10 2 20 3

Pringle 10 1 21 3

Cairns 10 0 36 2

Larsen 10 1 21 1

Hart 4 0 17 0

Thomson 6 0 24 0

New Zealand innings (target: 146 runs from 50 overs)

BA Young c Rashid Latif b Waqar Younis 3

BR Hartland not out 68

AH Jones c Rashid Latif b Waqar Younis 1

*KR Rutherford c Akram Raza b Ata-ur-Rehman 1

SA Thomson not out 48

Extras (lb 8, w 14, nb 3) 25

Total (3 wickets, 34.1 overs) 146

DNB: CL Cairns, MN Hart, +AC Parore, GR Larsen, DK Morrison,

C Pringle.

FoW: 1-26 (Young), 2-34 (Jones), 3-45 (Rutherford).

Bowling O M R W

Wasim Akram 6.3 0 17 0

Waqar Younis 8.1 1 33 2

Ata-ur-Rehman 9 0 44 1

Aamer Sohail 4 0 18 0

Akram Raza 3.3 0 14 0

Saleem Malik 3 0 12 0



c.The third source was the Rashid Latif and Ata
conversation on tape. Ata has denied that the voice on
the tape was his.

1.Still on the Christchurch match, Pakistan coach Intikhab
Alam when asked in court, said that Akram had been fit for
that game. However, he stated that at the time the match did
not appear to his to have been fixed. 

2.Rashid Latif on Akram's injury, said that Akram was feigning
injury as he had been rubbing his shoulder even prior to the
start of the New Zealand batting.

ALLEGATION TWO: WITHDRAWAL FROM THE WORLD CUP 1996
QUARTERFINAL.

3.In the Bangalore quarter final against India during the 1996
World Cup, Wasim Akram decided at the last minute not to
play the match. This according to vice-captain Aamir Sohail
was fatal to the outcome of the game as he was asked to
captain the side five minutes before the toss. 

4.In cross examination Wasim Akram said he was injured. In his
statement before this honorable court strike bowler Waqar
Younis said that it was not the normal practice for injured
players to travel with the team. 

5.Team physiotherapist Dan Keisel in his statement in court
said that Wasim was allowed to travel to Bangalore because
the injury was minor. He said when he examined him in
Bangalore the day before the match Wasim was sure that he
would be fit to play, keeping in view the importance of the
game. 

6.Aamir Sohail stated that Wasim had told him he was fit and
will be playing even the night before. But at the last
instant on the day of the match, he said he could not play.

ALLEGATION THREE: TAMPERING WITH THE BATTING ORDER TO FIX
MATCHES IN THE INDEPENDENCE CUP AND AT SHARJAH



7.Former captain Majid Khan, ex-Chief Executive of the
Pakistan Cricket Board has said that during the 1997
Independence Cup in Lahore Wasim Akram as captain
deliberately did not send in form players to bat at crucial
times and consistently promoted himself in the batting
order. When confronted with this Wasim, admitted his mistake
and, although he was the captain, said that he did not know
who the in form players were. A month later in a Sharjah
tournament, the Singer Champions Trophy 1997-98, Wasim
repeated the same mistake despite being admonished by the
coach Haroon Rasheed and the Chief Executive, Majid Khan.
Majid says that when he went to Sharjah briefly and spoke to
the coach Haroon Rasheed, his reply was that the team could
not win matches if the captain did not want to win them.

8.Wasim Akram had consistently promoted himself in the batting
order above the in form players thereby making the target
difficult for Pakistan to achieve. He persisted in sending
out of form batsmen in the top order positions. He again
went above Azhar Mahmood and in an important Sharjah game
scored 4 off 19 balls and Pakistan lost the match despite
being in a comfortable position. Detailed score card is as
follows:-



PAKISTAN v. ENGLAND (5th Match)

Played at Sharjah CA Stadium on December 15, 1997 (day/night)

Toss: England Debutants: NIL

Umpires: S.A. Bucknor (WI) & K.T. Francis (SL); c.j. Mitchley (TV Reply)

ICC Referee: P.J.B. Burge (Aus)

Result: England won by 8 runs Iaward: Manzoor Akhtar (Pakistan)

England

A.D. Brown c Moin Khan b Saqlain Mushtaq 41

A.J. Stewar b Manzoor Akhtar 47

N.V. Knight b Manzoor Akhtar 18

G.A. Hick b Manzoor Akhtar 40

G.P. Thorpe run out 3

*A.J. Hollioake c Shahid Afridi b Manzoor Akhtar 17

M.A. Ealham c & b Saqlain Mushtaq 6

D.R. Brown not out 18

M.V. Fleming c & b Saqlain Mushtaq 0

R.D.B. Croft c Ijaz Ahmed b Saqlain Mushtaq 6

D.W. Headly not out 6

EXTRAS (b 1, lb 4, w 7, nb 1) 13

TOTAL : For 9 wkts in 50 overs 215

Fall of Wickets: 71, 108, 121, 129, 168, 180, 185, 185, 203

Wasim Akram 6-1-34-0; Azhar Mahmood 7-1-31-0, Saqlain Mushtaq 10-1-26-4; Mushtaq Ahmed 10-0-45-0;
Manzoor Akhtar 10-0-50-4; Shahid Afridi 7-0-26-0.

Pakistan

Aamar Sohail c Rutherford b Morrison 1

Shahid Afridi b D.R. Brown 0

Saeed Anwar b Croft 54

Ijaz Ahmad c Croft b Ealham 41

Akhtar Sarfraz b Croft 20

Manzoor Akhtar run out 44

Moin Khan c Knight b Fleming 10

*Wasim Akram c D.R. Brown b Hollioake 4

Azhar Mahmood c Stewar b Hollioake 12

Saqlain Mushtaq run out 9

Mushtaq Ahmad not out 0

EXTRAS (lb 5, w 5, nb 2) 12

TOTAL: all out in 49 overs 207

1, 5, 99, 99, 134, 152, 177, 185, 207.

D.R. Brown 5-0-29-1; Headly 8-0-33-1; Ealham 10-1-39-1; Croft 10-1-39-2; Hollioake 10-0-35-2;
Fleming 6-0-27-1. 



ALLEGATION FOUR: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

9.Aaqib Javed in his statement said that Wasim Akram had threatened to keep him out of
the team so long as he was captain. This transpired after Aaqib had been instructed to
contact Saleem Pervez, accept a sum of Rs 40 lacs and a vehicle in order to join the team
the Sri Lanka. Aaqib said he declined after which Akram said Aaqib would never play.
Aaqib did not play for Pakistan till Wasim Akram was not available for the captaincy.

10.In his statement Aaqib named Malik and Akram as two of the main persons of
match-fixing.

11.Former captain Javed Miandad said that during his captaincy he had been informed by
Idress (Cadbury), who is the brother of alleged bookie Hanif Cadbury, that Wasim Akram,
Waqar Younis and another player whose name he could not remember was on his brother's
books. 

12.In the Singer Trophy final, Rashid also mentions that Wasim Akram was reprimanded by
coach Intikhab Alam for using his mobile phone in the dressing room when mobiles were
not to be switched on as per the rules of the Pakistan Cricket Board. He stated that he had
heard Wasim say of a match that 'he did not know' implying that Wasim did not know
whether that match was fixed or not. 

13.The other players who had mobile phones, a time when they were not so common, were
Malik and Younis. Intikhab says the Pakistan Cricket Board management had arrived at
the conclusion a long time ago that these mobiles were used by players to maintain contact
with the bookies.



FINDINGS, REASONS & RECOMMENDATIONS.



14.The first allegation was prima facie the strongest against Wasim Akram. However, having
considered the entire evidence, on record, this commission has come to the conclusion that
Ata-ur-Rehman in view of his retraction from his earlier statement and various subsequent
statements cannot be believed with any degree of certainty. His statement cannot be made
the basis of holding Wasim Akram guilty of the offence of match-fixing. Ata's first story
was that compelling that if Ata-ur-Rehman had not retracted from his earlier statement
and if his statement had stood the test of cross-examination, then perhaps this commission
might have held Wasim Akram guilty of fixing the Christchurch one-day match. But in the
present scenario, this is not possible.

15.The three possible sources of corroboration that seemed have offered themselves too are
too weak to prove the charge or support one of Ata's stories. The sources are as follows: 

i.What Ata told Imran Khan about Wasim making Ata an offer was not
contemporaneous; it was not after the New Zealand tour. Ata told Imran Khan after
the news broke in the papers. Ata could well have been lying to Imran Khan after the
news broke in the papers to support his story, to save face, or for any number of
reasons.

ii.Rashid Latif's statement against Wasim Akram. It is just his personal opinion. While
this Commission gives Rashid Latif's testimony a lot of weight generally, in this
instance the facts do not really support his assertions. 6.3 overs for 17 runs may be
magnificent bowling (even in the context of a low scoring match.) Moreover, the
Commission has to take into consideration Rashid's state of mind during that match.
Rashid had been just offered money by the Captain. He may well have been a tad
paranoid. This possibility of paranoia must be taken account of.

iii.The taped of the conversation between Ata-ur-Rehman and Rashid Latif cannot
provide good, independent corroboration as Ata once more may well have been lying
to Rashid Latif. Further, for the reasons earlier stated the tapes cannot be taken as
anything other than weak corroboration.

1.Use of a cellular phone and a reprimand for it cannot result in guilt. A phone is not an
incriminating object.

2.As regards the sub-allegation that Akram was feigning injury, it can be said that there is no
proof either way. Rashid and Intikhab only give personal opinions. Akram could well have
injured himself during the Pakistan inning. Even Wisden seemed to note that the injury was
authentic.

3.Most crucially, as regards allegation one, the Aamir Sohail factor was introduced into the
matters by Ata-ur-Rehman, the 'Aamir Sohail factor' being the allegation that Aamir
Sohail induced Ata to make the statement against Wasim Akram. While this commission is
minded to disbelieve anything Ata-ur-Rehman says in light of the number of times he has
changed his statement, it must still consider whether Aamir Sohail could have influenced
Ata's into making a false first affidavit. Even if it appears unlikely, there is a chance that
Aamir Sohail did. This introduces some doubt in my mind about Ata's first affidavit.

4.Aamir Sohail by his subsequent actions ironically seems to clear Wasim Akram. When
Sohail later became the captain of the Pakistan team, he played Wasim under him. Even
recently Sohail agreed to play under the man he said is likely to be crooked. In all of this
Aamir Sohail gives some credence to Ata's statements that Aamir Sohail put him up to
making the first affidavit and that it was false. Moreover, it needs be noted that when
Aamir Sohail appeared initially before this Commission he was the Captain of Pakistan and
had nothing substantial to say. This was despite his making a lot of allegations in the press.
Even Ata-ur-Rehman talks of this in his taped conversation with Rashid Latif. Thereafter,
once he had left the Captaincy he came back on 19.12.98 to the court with several
allegations. All of this damages Aamir Sohail's credibility and gives some credence to
Ata's second statement.

5.As regards allegation one on its own, this commission is left with no option but to hold
Wasim Akram not guilty of the charge of match-fixing. This the Commission does so only
by giving Wasim Akram the benefit of the doubt. This is done on the ground of insufficient
evidence. Wasim is barely saved through Ata-ur-Rehman's discrediting himself and Aamir
Sohail's actions.

6.As regards allegation two on its own, in light of Dr. Dan Keisel and Intikhab Alam's
statement, Wasim Akram cannot be said to have been feigning injury. Therefore he is
cleared.

7.As regards allegation three on its own, of tampering with the batting order to fix the match,
it has been said that Wasim was trying to take responsibility by going in himself, a risk
that failed. This commission is willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Wasim Akram.

8.As regards general allegations, although Rashid Latif has made allegations against him
but the same have not been substantiated with any evidence. Likewise the statement of
Javed Miandad or that for matter Ms. Fareshteh Gati-Aslam or Majid Khan is not
sufficient for arriving at a finding of guilt. 

9.Although Aaqib Javed's statement too does not hold some weight as all Aqib said was that
someone allegedly delivered Wasim's threat. As such this is strictly hearsay and
inadmissible. 

10.In favor of Akram, there is the evidence of police inquiries made into the kidnapping of his
father. The two inquiries have revealed that the kidnapping did not concern match-fixing or
gambling.

11.However, once this commission looks at the allegations in their totality, this commission
feels that all is not well here and that Wasim Akram is not above board. He has not
co-operated with this Commission. It is only by giving Wasim Akram the benefit of the
doubt after Ata-ur-Rehman changed his testimony in suspicious circumstances that he has
not been found guilty of match-fixing. He cannot be said to be above suspicion. It is,
therefore, recommended that he be censured and be kept under strict vigilance and further
probe be made either by the Government of Pakistan or by the Cricket Board into his
assets acquired during his cricketing tenure and a comparison be made with his income.
Furthermore, he should be fined Rs. 3 lac.

12.More importantly, it is further recommended that Wasim Akram be removed from
captaincy of the national team. The captain of the national team should have a spot-less
character and be above suspicion. Wasim Akram seems to be too sullied to hold that
office.





WAQAR YOUNIS

ALLEGATION ONE: RECEIPT OF A CAR

13.According to Aaqib Javed, Waqar Younis, among others received a car from Saleem
Pervez. This was a Pajero car and he and one other player to Aaqib's knowledge received
it. On Aaqib's insistence, Aaqib says Waqar then returned it. 

ALLEGATION TWO: INVOLVEMENT IN ATTEMPT TO FIX THE CHRISTCHURCH
MATCH

14.Rashid Latif has stated that Waqar was one of the four who were in the room when Malik
offered Rashid a bribe. Waqar along with two others has denied this.

ALLEGATION THREE: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

15.Former captain Javed Miandad said that during his captaincy he had been informed by
Idress (Cadbury), who is the brother of alleged, now deceased, bookie Hanif Cadbury, that
Waqar Younis, Wasim Akram and another player whose name he could not remember
were on his brother's books. 

16.Intikhab Alam says that after the Singer Trophy match against Australia in Sri Lanka,
when the team went to the hotel, he received a call from a caller who did not divulge his
name. He stated that he had lost Rs 40 lacs and that four to five players had sold
themselves. Intikhab thereafter called Waqar Younis, Salim Malik and Basit Ali to his
room. 

17.Intikhab Alam also says that when the Pakistan team lost the Mandela Trophy finals in
South Africa in 1994-95, he received a call from an anonymous person who said that 7/8
players had been bought over and Waqar Younis was among those.

18.Rashid Latif mentions that Wasim Akram was reprimanded by manager Intikhab Alam for
using his mobile phone in the dressing room in Sri Lanka when mobiles were not to be
switched on as per the rules of the Pakistan Cricket Board. The other players who had
mobile phones, a time when they were not so common, were Malik and Younis. Akram
Raza also mentioned that Waqar had a mobile phone when asked of match-fixing.

FINDINGS, REASONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

19.As regards allegation one alone, the receipt of a car, Waqar has denied it. No other
evidence has been forthcoming to support Aaqib's allegation, not from Aaqib nor from
Saleem Pervez. Even if one car was received, it was returned. If Waqar had fixed match
for the car, he was likely to have retained it. Perhaps the car was just a lure and Waqar
returned it. With no evidence forthcoming, one cannot say. Since the allegedly received car
was returned, the matter therefore needs not be further investigated.

20.As regards allegation two alone, fixing the Christchurch match, in light of denials by two of
the three players allegedly present, this Commission cannot say that Waqar was involved
in fixing the match. Furthermore, it is too great a jump for a person to say conclusively that
just by the fact that an offer was made before a player to fix a match, the person who
listened in was involved too. 

21.As regards the general allegations, they are generally baseless. No evidence has been
proffered to support them. The evidence against Waqar Younis is primarily hearsay (even
then mostly from anonymous sources) and unsubstantiated. Possession of a cellular phone
has no probative value unless it is alleged to have been used during a match to fix that
match. As such they alone are insufficient to hold Waqar Younis guilty to the requisite
standard.

22.However, all the allegations taken together warrant some action against Waqar Younis.
Two of Waqar's own managers and someone reputed to be his friend, Aaqib Javed have
alleged wrongdoing against him. These appear sufficient grounds for recommending a
censure. Moreover, that Waqar Younus should be kept under observation and
investigated. 
23.Further, during proceedings it was felt that Waqar Younus has been reluctant to help this
commission and even when prompted was not fully forthcoming. It is therefore
recommended that he be fined Rs. 1 lac. 



INZAMAM-UL-HAQ, AKRAM RAZA

24.Rashid Latif has deposed that these two were among the four
players who were present when Salim Malik made him an offer
to throw the 5th One Day match at Christchurch against New
Zealand. The implication is that they were involved to some
extent in match-fixing.

25.While a place a lot of weight can be placed on Rashid
Latif's testimony, in the absence of any other evidence and
in light of denials from the co-accused, it is not possible
to find them guilty of match-fixing. However, it is
recommended that these players be warned, kept under
observation and their finances be investigated.

26.Furthermore, when asked about the Christchurch match, the
partial amnesia that these players seem to have developed
was distressing. It is understandable that these players
have played too many games (except for Akram Raza and Basit
Ali) to recall all of them. Nevertheless, there have not
been that many matches about which allegations of
match-fixing have been made. It was interesting to see one
of them remembered the weather of the match, but did not
recall any other details. This commission believes that
these players probably knew more than they revealed. For not
being forthcoming, these players too should be fined Rs. 1
lac each and they be kept under observation.





BASIT ALI



27.Intikhab Alam stated that when Pakistan played Australia in
the Singer Trophy in Sri Lanka in 1993-94, they lost the
game despite being in very good form. (This is the same
match in which Saleem Pervez, in his statement says he paid
Salim Malik (along with Mushtaq Ahmed) a sum of US$100,000
to drop the game.) Intikhab Alam says that after that match,
when the team went to the hotel, he received a call from a
caller who did not divulge his name but stated that he had
lost Rs 40 lacs and that four to five players had sold
themselves. He called Malik, Waqar Younis and Basit Ali to
his room. While Malik and Waqar denied match-fixing, Basit
said he had been involved.

28.This is confirmed in Intikhab Alam's tour report for the
South Africa/ Zimbabwe 1994-95:

'Basit Ali is the only player in the Pakistan team who have
[sic] made a confession that he has been involved in
betting, his retirement from cricket is just to save
himself.'

29.There is also the matter of the taped conversation between
Salim Malik and Basit Ali and Rashid Latif. In it Basit
complains to Salim that Wasim is here in town and he is
putting allegations on me. 

30.Basit Ali has been named as among those four players who
were in the room when Rashid Latif was made an offer. Basit
Ali was ill with Jaundice and therefore not available to
confirm or deny this. Due to the deadline of the commission,
this lead could not be followed.

31.Basit Ali denied having ever made a confession to Intikhab
Alam. This plus the fact that Intikhab Alam was removed from
the post of manager because of mismanagement and negligence
in investigating the reports of match-fixing, there is
insufficient evidence to find Basit Ali guilty of any sort
of match-fixing.

32.Given that Basit retired and has distanced himself from
Cricket, he is not even guilty of bringing the name of the
Pakistan team into disrepute. This Commission therefore
believes that no strong action needs to be taken against
him. Basit has had the dignity and common sense to retire.
He should be allowed to be, as long as he stays out of
Cricket.





ZAHID FAZAL

33.Zahid Fazal was allegedly the carrier of a message to Saeed Anwar from Salim Malik to fix
a match against Australia in the Singer Trophy in Sri Lanka. Indirectly, allegedly, he was
involved in a fix. So he was called by the commission and under oath he denied that the
message he took in contained anything suspicious. He said that the message he took in
was to tell Saeed Anwar to take singles and not boundaries, and to try to bat out the whole
match. He said he took the message in only once. This contradicts Saeed Anwar's
statement that the message was sent to him repeatedly. However, that is appears to be
nothing suspicious and such inconsistencies are to be expected for a match so long ago.

34.In the absence of any evidence against him, this commission finds Zahid Fazal not guilty of
any match-fixing offence.



SAEED ANWAR

35.In the Singer Trophy match against Australia, Saeed Anwar
was sent a message by Salim Malik through Zahid Fazal. The
allegation made by Aamir Sohail among others has been that
the message was to get out or do something similar. 

36.Saeed Anwar has denied that the message contained anything
suspicious. He is supported in this by Zahid Fazal's
testimony. Saeed himself in his supplementary statement has
said that the message was to be careful. However, Saeed
Anwar says he was surprised when he received the message
repeatedly as he was batting well and was nearing his fifty.

37.Saeed Anwar thereafter developed cramps and retired hurt on
43* from 80/2 to 124/5 when he resumed with a runner, only
to be out on 46. All this was in the context of chasing a
low score of 179 by Australia and Pakistan failing with one
wicket in hand and at 151 when the overs ran out. 

38.Javed Burki has stated that Saeed had confessed to him that
the message indeed was to get out. And that Saeed has
promised to give this in writing. However, Saeed had come
back to him and said that he could not do that as his
brother had been threatened. Saeed has denied these as
contents of the message, but has accepted that his brother
was threatened.

39.The tapes handed in by Rashid Latif reveal that there was
something Saeed Anwar was going to reveal, which Mr. Arif
Abbassi knew, but he did not do so. 

40.According to Aamir Sohail's statement, Saeed wanted to pay
kaffara during the South Africa tour because of helping fix
the above match. Saeed felt that he was out of form because
of God's curse. It should be noted that South African tour
was some time after the Singer Trophy match in which Saeed
Anwar retired hurt for no apparent reason and came back to
bat at no. 6 when it was impossible to win.

41.This is corroborated by Rameez Raja in his statement before
the interim probe committee. The Probe Committee's Report
reads:

'Saeed Anwar was also being accused of betting and he i.e.
Saeed Anwar had also once in 1994-95 during the South
African tour regretted before him to be a part of the
conspiracy (of match-fixing) though he avoided his direct
involvement in direct words.'

42.In Saeed Anwar's favour, a lot of people have said he is
clean. Even one of the tapes seems to support this.

43.In light of the above, this commission itself unable to find
any compelling evidence to the requisite standard that Saeed
Anwar was involved in match-fixing a particular match.

44.However, with the totality of evidence this commission does
believe that Saeed Anwar has by his actions brought doubt
onto himself. Further, this commission felt that Saeed Anwar
was witholding some evidence from the Commission. In light
of all of this it is recommended that Saeed Anwar be fined
Rs. 1 lac and that he be kept under observation.



IJAZ AHMAD

45.Mr. Ata-ur-Rehman in his affidavit has stated that the match
in Christ Church against New Zealand was fixed by Mr. Ijaz
Ahmad and Zafar Ali alias Jojo. He had been told this by
Wasim Akram.

46.Rashid Latif stated in his supplementary statement that just
before he was made an offer by Salim Malik to throw the
Christchurch one day, Salim was on the phone with someone
called Ijaz. Rashid believed that this was Ijaz Ahmad but
could not say for certain whether it was Ijaz Ahmad.

47.In his statement in court Mr. Intikhab Alam has mentioned
Mr. Ijaz Ahmad, as one of the players involved in betting
and match-fixing. Mr. Alam however gave no further evidence
to support his allegation. 

48.Ijaz was said to have associated with gamblers on tour. He
has denied this.

49.According to Haroon Rashid, Ijaz was instrumental in slowing
down the batting in the match against Sri Lanka in the Will
Cup 1997/98 in Lahore. Ijaz made 94 off of 110 balls and
Pakistan lost the match.

50.There is little evidence to support that Mr. Ijaz Ahmad is
or was involved in match-fixing. Ata-ur-Rehman stands
discredited and in any event his allegation is hearsay.
Rashid Latif could not identify Ijaz Ahmad as being a
culprit with certainty. The other allegations are without
proof. Mr. Haroon Rashid's allegation is moreso. Anyone who
scores 94 off of 110 balls on any sort of a wicket cannot be
said to be fixing a match.

51.As such in lieu of evidence to the contrary, this Commission
finds Ijaz Ahmad not guilty of match-fixing. No action needs
to be taken against him other than that he, as has been
recommended with other players, should present an account of
his personal finances to the Board. He should also take care
so as to not associate with bookies.





ATA-UR-REHMAN



52.Ata has prima facie perjured himself. Proceedings have been
instituted against him separately. 
53.On the charge of match-fixing, this Commission has Ata's
confession which he has later resiled from. As against Ata
that confession can still be believed. However, against the
co-accused Wasim Akram, it is not admissible. By believing
Ata-ur-Rehman's first affidavit, this Commission recommends
a ban on him from international cricket for life. 
54.In light of his perjury, it is further found that he has
brought the name of the Pakistan team into disrepute.
Therefore, Ata-ur-Rehman should also be fined Rs. 4 lac,
twice the amount of money, he first claimed he took from
Wasim Akram. 





SAQLAIN MUSHTAQ

55.Haroon Rasheed has stated that Saqlain bowled suspiciously
against India in the Karachi One Dayer as he gave away 16/17
runs to the tailenders in his last over to lose match. 

56.Saqlain has explained that he could not grip the ball
properly as the umpires had changed the ball and had given
him a new ball albeit sanded down to bowl with. This
Commission accepts his explanation. There is no evidence to
cast doubt on Saqlain. In fact, Saqlain should consider it a
perverse compliment that he is considered so good that each
time he goes for runs in the death overs people think he
must be doing it purposely. 





THE TEAM AS A WHOLE

57.Rashid Latif has stated in his statement that the whole team
in New Zealand other than Asif Mujtaba and possibly Aamir
Sohail was involved in match-fixing. In other matches too,
different people have made allegations against a substantial
part of the team. However, this commission finds no evidence
to support this. Most of the allegations, beyond those
against three or four individuals, appear conjecture or
based on hearsay.

58.This commission finds a lot of truth in what Saeed Anwar
said in one of Rashid Latif's tapes: 'Is waqt sab ko sab par
shaq ho raha hai.' (At this moment everyone is suspecting
everyone). Paranoia can account for a lot of what was said,
for most of the allegations.

59.Various cricket experts like Imran Khan, Javed Miandad have
stated that for a match to be fixed at least 5-7 players
ought to be bought. As seen above, this commission could not
find conclusive evidence against as many players, thus on
the whole the team is cleared of blame.

60.The current team is in any event a largely new one, and one
invested in youth. They are as yet unsullied. Care should be
taken so as to ensure they remain so. To this end
recommendations are made later in this Report.







PART VI

OTHER OBSERVATIONS

61.First and foremost, this Commission must acknowledge Mr.
Rashid Latif, albeit with some reservation because, of inter
alia, the tainted evidence he handed in. Nevertheless, his
persistence in pursuing this matter needs to be appreciated.
If he had not taken the steps he did, the Australians may
well have not come forward openly and this Commission would
not have been able to clear the air. To this end, as
mentioned later, Rashid Latif be given immunity from
offences arising out the tapping of phones, if the
conversation therein produced was for use by this commission
and was produced in an authentic form (see recommendations
later).

62.It must be noted with great regret that a number of people
were quite uncooperative and not forthcoming in these
proceedings:

63.For one, this commission must take note of the
counterproductive nature of those who promised much but had
little or no evidence. Mr. Aamir Sohail needs to be
pinpointed. He promised a lot in public, gave a lot of
interviews but in court he came to be non-committal. If he
had no evidence then he should have remained quiet about the
matter. Later, he came up with further allegations which he
should have made in the first instance. Generally if people
have no evidence, then they should not vilify people in
public. Moreover, Aamir Sohail's case was sad as he by his
later actions has effectively condoned the corruption that
he had alleged and the people he had accused.

64.This commission felt a lot of the time that most of the
people appearing before it were not telling the truth, or at
least not that whole truth. Even more regretful was the
attitude and statements of those who said they had not even
heard of match-fixing. Some appeared tutored, while others
seemed unwilling to blow the whistle. Mr. Waqar Younus, for
one, initially said he had not even heard of anyone being
involved in match-fixing. Inzamam-ul-Haq similarly seemed to
suffer from amnesia. They both needed stern prompting to
speak true and even then it is doubtful they spoke the whole
truth. This commission understands that people feel a sense
of loyalty towards players they have played with, but such a
feeling is very misplaced. Corruption in any walk of life
ought to be weeded out and by withholding information people
do themselves and all around them a great disservice.
Prompting should not be needed to tell the truth. 

65.This commission must also take notice of the (in)action of
Mr. Asif Iqbal. His name has been bandied around the most
during this inquiry as being the first Pakistani involved in
match-fixing and even now when allegations are made of
gambling in Sharjah, his name features. The Ehtesaab Bureau
also reports against him. Yet he has never came forward to
clear his name. Asif Iqbal legally does not need to come
forward and defend himself. But morally, he ought to have
cleared the air.

66.The attitude of the Australian Cricket Board needs to be
appreciated with some reservation. They initially did not
present their players to Justice Ebrahim for
cross-examination. That goes to their discredit. (They had
to their credit however invited the Ebrahim inquiry to
Australia.) However, since the tour of Pakistan and
particularly the embarrassment of their players as regards
their own involvement in bribery, the ACB has been very
helpful. All expenses for the representatives of the
Commission to go and be in Australia were paid by the ACB
and all requests by way of protocol were entertained. The
Australians fully accommodated the Commission in Australia
and that has to be appreciated: they provided the
sub-commission with a Court room, one right down to the
picture of the Quaid, allowed the Pakistani court-dress code
with gowns, and followed Pakistani evidence procedure.

67.However, it must be noted with regret that Mr. Waugh and Mr.
Warne were initially not above board. They could have
volunteered their involvement with bookies in confidence.
This information was material as to why they were asked by
Salim Malik to fix the Test Match. It appears that after Sri
Lanka and dealings with John, the word was out in the
gambling community that Warne and Waugh could possibly be
bought. As such the green light was given for Salim Malik to
approach them. That they declined Malik's offer goes to
their credit. That they withheld this information from this
Commission goes against them. 

68.It is of great regret that the commission was prevented from
inquiry into the World Cup through a notification dated 18th
August, 1999 after having initially been given the green
light through a notification on the 16th August, 1999.
Questions about the team's performance in the final and
against Bangladesh still linger and looking into that matter
would have only helped clear up the air.

69.This Commission would like to extend its thanks to all
concerned with the inquiry. Mr. Ali Sibtain Fazli as amicus
curiae and his associates have been invaluable to the court.
The counsels for the accused, Mr. Khwaja Tariq Raheem, Mr.
Azmat Saeed and Mr. Tariq Shamim are to be appreciated too
for their efforts. Information sources such as CricketInfo,
Wisden and articles by Mark Ray, Fareshteh Gati-Aslam,
Donald Topley, Imtiaz Sipra etc. for reference and
background were useful. Mr. Abdus-Salam Khawar, Additional
Registrar High Court was tireless in his assistance. The
concerns of the public at large are to be appreciated too.
While for obvious reasons this commission has tried to stay
away from the many letters it received regarding this
inquiry, all of them were read by assistants who indicate
that all of them deserve to be acknowledged. The amusing and
encouraging ones need to appreciated and the angry ones need
to be told that Cricket is only a game and the players only
human beings. 





PART VII

RECOMMENDATIONS



70.In order to prevent match-fixing in the future it is
recommended…

71.That the Captain of Pakistan Cricket team should be a person
of impeccable character and not someone anyone can point a
finger at. From the evidence recorded, it can be seen that
the Captain is the key player to be bought to fix a match.
Hence, this strong recommendation.

72.That similarly, the manager should be a person of impeccable
character. A manager should realize that there are people on
this earth who would lie even on oath. A manager needs to
keep a stern hand with the players.

73.That all foreign tours should take along an independent
third party, an ombudsman of sorts to deal with players
complaints and indiscipline. Such a person could be the
chairman of the PCB or his impartial nominee. 

74.That a new code of conduct should be introduced for the
players. The ICC code of conduct needs to be tightened and
more provisions need to be introduced, targeting
specifically the threat of match-fixing. To this end, under
the code, players should be stopped from associating with
known bookies or people who are convicted of match-fixing
and similar offences. Such terms should be made a
pre-condition to employment by the PCB and should be
incorporated into the players' contracts. 

75.That a permanent Review Committee should be formed to look
into inter alia allegations of the match-fixing in the
future. It should consist of people independent of the
Board. The members of the review committee should have a
good knowledge of cricket and have clean records. The
Committee may also have a member being a former judge of the
High Court or the Supreme Court of Pakistan. At the end of
tours such a committee should look into the performance of
the team and allegations of irregularities if any. Whenever
there are any allegations, whether of match-fixing,
ball-tampering or any other misconduct, the match should be
reviewed by the Committee and its report should be submitted
to the board. Such a committee should be prompt in its
disposal of the matters raised, as lingering over the matter
only makes matters worse. 

76.That, inter alia, in order to facilitate the review
committee, it should be made mandatory on the Board to
collect video recordings of all the matches that have been
played by the team and stored in its library. Such video
recordings should be free of advertisements as it is when
these ads are being shown i.e. at fall of wickets and change
of ends that suspicious interchanges are likely to occur.
This latter point is particularly raised as the moment in
the Christchurch one-dayer where Salim Malik allegedly is
said to have been angry with Rashid Latif for taking a catch
is cut out by an advertisements break.

77.That the Review Committee adopt the two sub-offences
approach to match-fixing as used by this Commission. This
would allow it to sideline or warn players well before they
can damage to the good name of the team.

78.That the PCB should adopt a zero tolerance approach in this
matter. 

79.That Pakistani cricketers should declare their assets at the
time they start their career and annually submit their asset
forms to the Pakistan Cricket Board. This would ensure that
their assets can be compared with their earnings and
spendings. Such information may be kept confidential by the
PCB. The Board should also compare these figures against
figures obtained through independent inquiries from the
players' employers (Counties, Leagues, Banks, etc.)

80.That players be forbidden to speak to the press unless
authorized though a clause in their contract like the one
contained in the ACB contract. Only after all PCB avenues of
recourse have been exhausted can a player be excused from
going to the press. This restriction may be limited to
controversial matters only if the Board is so minded.

81.That in conjunction to the ban on speaking to the press, the
PCB should actively take to defending its players, present
and past, and not allow anyone to defame them. The players
are the PCB's true capital and it should recognize that.

82.That generally Pakistani Law needs a summary procedure for
damages for defamation. Such a procedure would be a
deterrent to baseless allegation and would provide
satisfaction to the innocents accused.

83.That the ban on cellular phones and outside communication
generally during matches should be strictly applied. Phones,
if necessary, can be routed through the manager. Any breach
of this regulation should be strictly taken note of. 

84.That generally discipline of the team be strictly monitored
and maintained. Allowing minor breaches to go unpunished
leads to players taking liberties and bigger breaches
follow.

85.That players be prepared for the possibility that they can
be blackmailed. Gamblers try to lure them in with all sorts
of offers. Offers of cars, women, etc. can all lead to
blackmail if accepted. We have seen it happen to others.
Pakistani players should not be left naïve and it should be
the duty of the board to educate these players when they
come into the team as to the dangers and temptations are to
that are faced by them.

86.That the Pakistan Cricket Board should consider not sending
Pakistan to venues which are reputed to be dens of bookies.

87.That this report should be released to the public. To give
it wide publication this may also be released on the
internet too. To this end a copy of the report is submitted
on disk too (Microsoft Word format).

88.That the PCB increase the pay of its Cricketers and develop
for them more avenues of income (some are suggested below).
It has been noticed that the Cricket Board is no longer a
body which is running on grants by either the Federal
government or by Federal Government institutions. The Board
has of late become self-reliant and it is believed that the
coffers of the Board are full. The Board after all generates
money through the players and in all fairness the players
deserve to receive more than they are presently receiving.
An ACB cricketer earns in the region of US$250,000 to
US$400,000 plus almost as much in endorsements on the side.
Currently the PCB pays Pakistani cricketers around US$70,000
a year. Pakistani players for all their talent are not as
well-paid as their counterparts abroad. As long as they are
underpaid the tendency to be bribed remains. However, it
should also be stated that such increases should not be to
as high a level as some other countries because the cost of
living in Pakistan as regards to the other countries is much
lower. An increase with an eye on the standard of living in
Pakistan is the order of the day.

89.That there are other avenues for funds that can be tapped by
cricketers or the PCB on their behalf. Memoirs, biographies,
tour diaries, sale of autographs and memorabilia can provide
cricketers with adequate secondary remuneration. Moreover,
with chances of playing cricket abroad (County, League,
etc.) and employment available locally for cricketers
(banks, etc.), this Commission finds it very painful to see
that a cricketer would accept a bribe for instant money than
avail any of the above noted opportunities for clean money.

90.That winning should be made more lucrative to players. To
this end, further and more substantial win bonuses should be
introduced. If players receive larger sums for playing well
and winning tournaments, it would be an incentive to stay
straight. No one is born corrupt or a match-fixer. This is
especially so in the case of sportsmen. We have all heard of
sportsman spirit and it is this spirit that needs to be
inculcated into every child while he is developing his
skills in the game. It is in this rationale and background
that it is suggested that if players were to receive major
sums of money for playing well in the form of win bonuses,
the very temptation for an innocent sportsman of getting
corrupt would in all probability be eliminated. This would,
of course, be a scenario after all corrupt elements have
been weeded out and punished. 

91.That the pay structure of the PCB to its players be revised.
Instead of being only based on seniority, when paying
players, their performances, past and recent, should be
worked into the pay-structure too. A player who fixes a
match by getting a low score will feel the affects in his
pay packet. That might be another incentive to stay
straight. The pay structure now is strange in that if Salim
Malik came back to the team he would get more than say
Shoaib Akhtar. This leads to dissatisfaction among the
younger stars and raises the possibility of corruption.

92.That, witnesses should be reimbursed for all the expenses
they have incurred in following up this matter.

93.That Rashid Latif be given immunity for the offence of
tapping phones as long as such an offence was committed so
as to assist this commission of inquiry and the tapes were
produced before this commission in an unedited and authentic
form. For the purpose of this immunity, there be a
presumption that the tapes are authentic unless proven
otherwise: the burden to prove them fakes lies on the
parties alleging they are fake. Thereafter, fakes may well
be acted upon.

94.That the Pakistan Government should investigate gambling in
Pakistan. Gambling is against Islamic law, yet the extent to
which it is carried out in Pakistan and tolerated was a
revelation. The people named in the Ehtesaab Report and the
ones captured during this inquiry need to be investigated
and prosecuted.

95.That, the following avenues if the patron be so minded be
investigated. Inter alia, for lack of time, these were not
pursued.

a.A more thorough investigation into allegation of
match-fixing in domestic matches. 

b.Verification of all the Rashid Latif tapes, inter alia
by confronting players with them. (Saeed Anwar, Javed
Burki, Arif Abbassi, etc.)

1.That, it needs to be said to the general public, this matter
now needs to be put to rest. When they react to losses, the
Public should be more tolerant in its criticism and remember
that cricket is still a game of chance and the players are
indeed human still. The other team is there to play too and
the Pakistan team is not that invincible, at least not all
of the time, that if they lose or fail to come from behind
there must be something amiss. Even some of the Pakistan
team coaches need to take note of that. (Haroon Rasheed's
allegation against Saqlain was ludicrous.)

2.That, to those disappointed with their fallen heroes, it be
suggested that humans are fallible. Cricketers are only
cricketers. Please maintain a sense of perspective when you
react and criticize. 

PART VIII

CONCLUSION

3.The allegation that the Pakistan team is as a whole is
involved in match-fixing is just based on allegation,
conjectures and surmises without there being positive proof.
As a whole, the players of the Pakistan Cricket team are
innocent. 

4.However, there is clear evidence of match-fixing against Mr.
Salim Malik. He should be banned for life from Cricket.
Further an inquiry should be conducted into his assets and
charges brought against him in a criminal court of law.

5.The evidence against Wasim Akram has not come up to the
requisite level, primarily because of Ata-ur-Rehman's
perjuring himself. This Commission is willing to give him
the benefit of doubt. However, there has been some evidence
to cast doubt on his integrity. As such, this Commission
recommends that he be removed from the captaincy of the
Pakistan Cricket Team and a person of impeccable character
be appointed. Moreover, he should be censured, kept under
watch and his finances should be investigated.

6.Ata-ur-Rehman is being proceeded against for perjury.
Further, it is recommended that he be banned from
international cricket.

7.This commission recommends that PCB should enforce
declaration of assets by all its players and, if necessary,
initiate a probe into their accounts. 

8.In addition to recommendation of other punishments, fines
are recommended against the following players as follows (as
explained esrlier):

Salim Malik Rs. 10 lac

Wasim Akram Rs. 3 lac

Mushtaq Ahmad Rs. 3 lac

Ata-ur-Rehman Rs. 1 lac

Waqar Younis Rs. 1 lac

Inzamam-ul-Haq Rs. 1 lac

Akram Raza Rs. 1 lac

Saeed Anwar Rs. 1 lac



9.It may be recommended inter alia that a watch-dog Review
Committee be formed to deal with future allegations if any.
Further that all Pakistani cricket players should declare
their assets at the time they start their career at the
national level and annually submit their asset forms to the
Pakistan Cricket Board. A zero tolerance approach be taken
against match-fixing in the future and strict discipline
generally be maintained.







(Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum)

Commission