Qayyum Report

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 Inquiry Report Page 1

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
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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:
15. 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.
16. 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:
17. 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.

18. 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.)
19. 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).
20. 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:
21. 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:
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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:
27. 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.
28. 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)
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. (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.
32. (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.
33. 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
34. The Commission started its inquiry on 9th of September
1998 and summoned various persons together with
evidence regarding the matter under reference.
35. 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

36. 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
37. Three Australian players were also examined, namely:
1. Mr. Mark Waugh

2. Mr. Mark Taylor
3. Mr. Shane Warne
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. 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.)
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. 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.
66. 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.
67. 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.

68. 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.
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. 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.
82. 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”.

83. 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.
84. 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.
85. 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.
86. 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:
87. 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.’
88. 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.
89. 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.
90. “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.”
91. ‘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.’
92. 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.
93. 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.
94. 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.
95. A number of reasons make this report to be of rather
limited value to this Commission:

96. 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.
97. 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.
98. 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.
99. 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.
100. 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.
101. 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.
102. 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.
103. 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.
104. 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.
105. All the three times, John only inquired about pitch
and weather conditions.
106. 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.
107. 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.
108. 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.
109. In February, 1995, he was asked to make a short
summary of the incident and was asked to sign a
declaration in April, 1995.
110. 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.
111. 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.
112. 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.
113. 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)
114. Efforts were made to authenticate these tapes, but
such technology does not seem available in Pakistan.
115. 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.
116. 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.
117. 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.
118. 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.
119. 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.
120. 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.
121. Summaries of these conversations are found in the
Appendix II.
LINES OF INVESTIGATION ARISING OUT THE TAPES PURSUED
122. In response to the Rashid Latif tapes, the inquiry was
reopened and more people were called by the
Commission.
123. 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.]
124. 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.
125. 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.
126. 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.
127. 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.
128. 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.
129. 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.
130. 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.
131. 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.
132. 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.
133. 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.
134. 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. In Sri Lanka Saeed told the manager
Intikhab Alam of his suspicions and Intikhab told him
to keep quiet. However, Saeed said he has no direct
evidence against anyone.
135. At Christchurch, he had just come back into the team
after a year and a half. He could not say whether the
match was fixed. However, he did confront Wasim Akram
with the allegation and Wasim has always denied it.
136. While he was batting in Sri Lanka, Saeed says he
received repeated messages which surprised him as he
was playing at his best. He had made 47 when the
messages came. Further Salim Pervez and his group had
been present when the one-day was played at Kaitarama.
Rashid Latif had told me that he was offered money by
Malik but that was during the South Africa tour. It is
however correct that some person called him Saeed up
in Sri Lanka and offered him money. He informed Rashid
Latif of it.
137. Thereafter, Mr. Khalid Mahmood was called in the
matter of his conversation with Mr. Rashid Latif.
After hearing the tape, Mr. Mehmood was quite pleased
to accept that it was his voice on the tape.

138. Imran Khan (for corroboration of Ata telling him of
accusation against Wasim Akram), Javed Burki (to let
him hear his tape), Arif Abbassi (to confront him with
his tape and get information from him about what Saeed
Anwar told him) were summoned. However, for various
reasons they were unable to appear before the
commission before the closing date.
139. Ata-ur-Rehman appeared again in response to his show-
cause notice. He was further asked about Imran Khan’s
statement that Ata had told him about an offer having
been made to him by Wasim Akram. Ata stated that he
had done so and that he had told Imran of the offer
after the news had broken in the newspapers.
140. Imran Khan in the meanwhile did through his attorney
confirm that Ata had indeed told him about the Wasim
accusation after the news had broken in the
newspapers.

PART IV
LEARNED COUNSELS’ ARGUMENTS
The Counsels’ closing submissions
141. On the request of the learned counsels for the
accused, the commission allowed counsels an
opportunity to give closing submissions, so as to sum
up the case of each side. The amicus was also asked to
and did make a submission.
142. They were asked to inter alia address the following
questions:
(a) What is the standard of proof to be applied in
this case?
(b) Why have people blamed their respective clients?
(c) Why individuals have said what they have said
against them?
(d) What is the evidence for and against?
(e) Why is it that a majority of managers of the team
say there has been match-fixing?
(f) What recommendations can they make for stopping
match-fixing in the future?
For Salim Malik:

143. Mr. Azmat Saeed for the accused Salim Malik made his
submissions. He submitted that a match can only be
fixed by 5 or 6 players working together. It cannot be
fixed by an individual working alone. One player can
win a match, but it takes a conspiracy for a team to
loose.
144. Salim Pervez’ statement is like a ‘multiple choice
test.’ Between his statement and cross-examination
there are a number of material contradictions. He is
confused about who carried the money. He says that he
went to Sri Lanka to fix a match, whereas at another
time he said it had already been fixed. He says that
he did not place a bet on the match. Then why fix it ?
145. The only reason so many people have given evidence
against Salim Malik is that he has an abrasive
personality.
146. Similarly Rashid Latif should not be believed because
all the players he has named as co-accused in
Christchurch have denied the matter.
147. Moreover, the Australians are not to be believed
because they waited four months to make their
statement. While they were in Pakistan they did not
make a hint of such a thing to the PCB or anyone for
that matter.

148. Therefore, he submitted, it cannot be said to the
requisite standard of proof that his client is guilty.
For Wasim Akram:
149. Mr. Khawaja Tariq Raheem made his submissions for his
client, Wasim Akram. He stated that most of his
arguments have already been submitted in written form.
They were as follows:
(a) ‘The… allegations are based on hearsay evidence,
tainted with ulterior motives and malafide
intentions, beset with contradictions and are
indicative of the sheer lack of credibility of
the persons making the depositions.’
(b) Ata-ur-Rehman in view of his retraction cannot be
believed. Inter alia, he said that Ijaz Ahmad was
instrumental in fixing the Christchurch match.
Ijaz was not even in New Zealand in any capacity
much less as part of the team.
(c) In the Akhbar-e-Watan article and the Nawa-e-Waqt
statement dated 10.1.97, Ata has in fact praised
Wasim Akram and stated that he did not offer Ata
money.

(d) Ata-ur-Rehman has stated that his original
affidavit is with Mr. Khalid Mehmood, whereas
Aamir Sohail has produced the same before the
commission on 19.12.98. This indicates that both
have colluded to implicate and malign Wasim
Akram.
(e) There are contradictions between Aamir Sohail’s
first statement against Wasim Akram and his
supplementary statement. In the first statement
on 8.10.98 Sohail categorically denied any
knowledge of match-fixing yet he changed his
stance two months later. This, he did in order to
find a place in the team.
(f) The contents of the supplementary statement have
no probative value as the allegations are
conjectural and full of contradictions. Further,
Sohail did not report the matters he highlighted
to the BCCP or the manager at the relevant times.
(g) The statement of Rashid Latif does not contain an
iota of evidence and contains baseless
allegations. The fact that players used mobile
phone cannot be used to draw inferences of match-
fixing against him. The allegations arise out of
bitterness for having been replaced in the team
by a competent all-rounder in Moin Khan. He has

failed to report the matters complained of to any
BCCP or the team manager at any relevant time.
(h) Javed Miandad’s statement that he was told by
Haneef Cadbury that Wasim was a bought player is
hearsay and no plausible evidence has been
provided in support. It is interesting to recall
that Miandad cannot even recall the name of the
third player who had been bought according to
Cadbury.
(i) Majid Khan has alleged match-fixing in that the
batting order was changed by Wasim Akram to the
detriment of the team. In Wasim’s defence it can
be said that he is a quick scorer and often such
a scorer is brought up the order to make a few
quick runs.
150. In addition to the written submissions he orally
submitted that the standard of proof required under
the 1956 Act was that of beyond reasonable doubt as
the commission may recommend criminal sanctions. He
sought support from the case of the Lone Commission in
the matter of the co-operatives.
151. He stated that there are in fact three matches about
which there is some doubt that they might have been

fixed: the Christchurch match, the Singer Cup and the
match against England in Sharjah where there was
controversy over the batting order. In the first two,
Wasim’s performance with the ball was outstanding. At
Christchurch, his figures were 6.3 over for 18 runs,
less runs per over given than anyone else in the team.
That Wasim did not complete his overs was up to the
Captain. In the Singer Cup he bowled ten overs for 28
runs and bagged three wickets. Finally, as regards the
Sharjah match, the allegation is that Wasim did not
send Moin Khan or Azhar Mehmood ahead of him. Azhar
Mehmood was not well-established in those days and his
one-day record was bad. Moin Khan when sent in did not
score many himself.
152. Ata-ur-Rehman’s statements are loaded with
inconsistencies. He cannot be believed.
153. Counsel to Wasim Akram indicated that it was
suspicious that all the players accusing the Pakistani
players come from the same team, Allied Bank of
Pakistan. Rashid Latif, Ata-ur-Rehman, Aaqib Javed,
Aamir Sohail and as their captain Rameez Raja.
154. As regards recommendations to stop match-fixing, he
recommended that win bonuses be introduced. Moreover,
the players should be remunerated on par with other
cricketers around the world.

155. If the Commission did find anyone guilty, the
appropriate punishment would be a censure, perhaps a
ban for some time, or more appropriately a fine.
The submissions of the amicus curiea:
156. Mr. Ali Sibtain Fazli, who is the Legal Advisor of
Pakistan Cricket Board and has been the Counsel
assisting this Commission, was asked to appear as an
amicus-curiea in the case. He first addressed the
Court with regard to the yard sticks of proof that
would be required for the purposes of arriving at any
conclusion by this Commission regarding the
involvement of any player or other official or person
in match fixing. He contended that the rules of
evidence for civil and criminal cases are, in general,
the same. But some provisions in the Qanun-e-Shahadat
Order, 1984, are peculiar to criminal cases and others
peculiar to civil cases. There is, however, a marked
difference as to the effect of evidence in civil and
criminal cases. In civil cases, a mere pre-ponderance
of evidence and probability are sufficient to serve as
the basis of decision while in criminal cases proof of
guilt beyond all reasonable doubt is required. He
cited references from the Evidence Act, 1872 by M.
Monir. He further stated that the case of the
cricketers and the present inquiry can, at best, be

equated with that of service servants or other service
matters, and a domestic inquiry that is held on the
basis of which they may be dismissed from service. The
yardstick for arriving at such a decision would not be
of proving guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt but would be based on pre-ponderance of
evidence.
157. The Counsel was asked by the Commission as to against
which of the players was there any direct evidence of
match fixing. The Counsel named Saleem Malik, Wasim
Akram and Mushtaq Ahmad. He also stated that in the
case of Basit Ali and Waqar Younis, there is some
evidence against them, but it is not sufficient to
arrive at any final conclusion. He also named Ijaz
Ahmad and stated that although his name has been
mentioned by quite a few persons, but there is no
direct evidence against him to prove that he has been
involved in match fixing.
158. Against Salim Malik he indicated there were statements
of the Australians, Rashid Latif and Saleem Pervez.
General allegation were leveled by a number of others.
Primarily, most people name Malik as a king-pin.
159. According to Rashid Latif, Malik probably fixed the
Christchurch match with Ijaz Ahmed and Zafar Ali Jojo.
He went to Sri Lanka and fixed the Singer Trophy match

with Salim Pervez. There, John had approached the
Australians. Malik was probably told of this. He
therefore tried to bribe the Australians when he saw
them. Then when the team went to South Africa, the
matter came to a head when Rashid Latif finally cried
foul in public. The Australians thereafter came
forward with their allegations. The pattern is there.
160. As against Wasim Akram there was the evidence of Ata-
ur-Rehman primarily and to certain extent Rashid
Latif. Plus there were statements of various office
holders and the issue of changing the batting order in
Sharjah and the withdrawal from the Quarterfinal in
Bangalore. In light of Ata’s U-turn, Ata’s story
cannot be believed. However, it should be recommended
that Wasim Akram be warned and kept under observation.
161. As against Mushtaq there is the statement of Salim
Pervez that he did give Mushtaq and Malik the money to
fix a match in Sri Lanka.
162. With this the inquiry was closed on the 30th of
September, 1999.

PART V
INDIVIDUALS ALLEGEDLY INVOLVED IN MATCH-FIXING
EVIDENCE, VERDICT & REASONS
163. 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.
164. 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
165. 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
166. 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.
167. 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:
• Day 1: Pakistan 334/7 (Basit Ali 98*, Akram Raza 27*)
• Day 2: Pakistan 344, New Zealand 200, Pakistan 8/2 (Atif Rauf 3*, Akram Raza 2*)
• Day 3: Pakistan 179, New Zealand 9/0 (Young 3*, Hartland 3*)
• 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
168. 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.
169. 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

16 March 1994 (50-overs match)

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

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
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
Akram Raza 3.3 0 14 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.
170. 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.
171. 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.
172. 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
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
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
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)

173. 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.
174. 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.))
175. 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.
176. Basit had scored 0 off 13 balls and had no
contribution as a fielder either.
177. 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.
178. (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.)
179. 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
180. After the Sri Lanka tour the Pakistan team played in a
home series against Australia in Autumn 1994.
181. 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.
182. 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.
183. 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.)
184. 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.
185. 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.
186. 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.
187. 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
188. 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.
189. 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.
190. 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.)
191. 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.
192. 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.
193. 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.’
194. 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.
195. 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
196. Copies of Cheques for Salim Malik were handed in by
Rashid Latif, drawn by one Caesar Fernanades in favor
of Salim Malik.
197. Aaqib Javed in his statement said that Salim Malik
along with Wasim Akram was one of the main players
involved in match-fixing.
198. 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.
199. 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
200. 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.
201. 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.
202. 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.

203. 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.
204. 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.
205. 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.
206. 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.
207. 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.
208. 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.
209. 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.
210. 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
211. 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:)
212. 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.’
213. 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.
214. 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:
215. 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.
216. 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.
217. 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.
218. Final findings against Mushtaq on the charge of match-
fixing will soon follow in the Supplementary
statement.

WASIM AKRAM
219. 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
220. 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.
221. 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.
222. 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.
223. 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.

224. 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

16 March 1994 (50-overs match)

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
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
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
Akram Raza 3.3 0 14 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.
225. 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.
226. 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.
227. 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.
228. 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.
229. 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.
230. 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
231. 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.
232. 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
233. 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.
234. In his statement Aaqib named Malik and Akram as two of
the main persons of match-fixing.

235. 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.
236. 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.
237. 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.

238. 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.
239. 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.
240. Use of a cellular phone and a reprimand for it cannot
result in guilt. A phone is not an incriminating
object.
241. 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.
242. 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.
243. 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.
244. 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.
245. 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.
246. 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.
247. 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.
248. 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.
249. 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.
250. 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.
251. 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
252. 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
253. 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
254. 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.
255. 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.
256. 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.
257. 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
258. 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.
259. 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.
260. 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.
261. 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.
262. 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
263. 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.
264. 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.
265. 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
266. 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.
267. 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.’
268. 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.
269. 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.
270. 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.
271. 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
272. 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.
273. In the absence of any evidence against him, this
commission finds Zahid Fazal not guilty of any match-
fixing offence.

SAEED ANWAR
274. 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.
275. 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.
276. 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.
277. 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.
278. 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.
279. 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.
280. 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.’

281. In Saeed Anwar’s favour, a lot of people have said he
is clean. Even one of the tapes seems to support this.
282. 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.
283. 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
284. 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.
285. 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.
286. 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.
287. Ijaz was said to have associated with gamblers on
tour. He has denied this.
288. 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.

289. 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.
290. 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
291. Ata has prima facie perjured himself. Proceedings have
been instituted against him separately.
292. 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.
293. 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
294. 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.
295. 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
296. 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.
297. 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.
298. 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.

299. 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
300. 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).
301. It must be noted with great regret that a number of
people were quite uncooperative and not forthcoming in
these proceedings:
302. 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.
303. 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.

304. 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.
305. 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.

306. 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.
307. 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.
308. 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
309. In order to prevent match-fixing in the future it is
recommended…
310. 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.
311. 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.
312. 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.

313. 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.
314. 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.

315. 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.
316. 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.
317. That the PCB should adopt a zero tolerance approach in
this matter.
318. 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.)
319. 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.
320. 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.
321. 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.
322. 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.

323. 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.
324. 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.
325. That the Pakistan Cricket Board should consider not
sending Pakistan to venues which are reputed to be
dens of bookies.
326. 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).
327. 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.
328. 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.
329. 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.
330. 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.
331. That, witnesses should be reimbursed for all the
expenses they have incurred in following up this
matter.
332. 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.
333. 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.

334. 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.)
335. 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.)
336. 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
337. 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.
338. 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.
339. 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.

340. Ata-ur-Rehman is being proceeded against for perjury.
Further, it is recommended that he be banned from
international cricket.
341. This commission recommends that PCB should enforce
declaration of assets by all its players and, if
necessary, initiate a probe into their accounts.
342. 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
343. 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


Qayyum Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qayyum Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Qayyum Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PART I

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 Inquiry Report Page 1

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

Cricket Inquiry Report Page 2

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