The three-member Bangladesh Premier League tribunal headed by Justice Khademul Islam Chowdhury has found that ICC’s Anti-Corruption and Security Unit (Acsu) maintained no guidelines or protocols while investigating the match- and spot-fixing allegations that ravaged the second edition of Bangladesh Premier League last year.
According to the tribunal’s complete judgement report, this was the main reason why the evidence placed by Acsu against the charged individuals lost its weight and was confusing to a certain extent.
The report pointed out that Ian Pont, the coach of Dhaka Gladiators was the first individual to inform Acsu of the corrupted games in last year’s BPL. Ian informed Acsu official Peter O’Shea of being approached by Dhaka Gladiators managing director Shihab Chowdhury to fix the match against Chittagong Kings on February 2, 2013. He also informed Peter of his intention to leave Bangladesh right away. But the Acsu official persuaded Ian to play according to Shihab’s plans and told him that the fixed match should take place.
According to the plan, Dhaka Gladiators’ regular captain Mashrafe Mortaza should be rested and Mohammad Ashraful would captain in his place. Plan of who else might be interested in getting involved with fixing was raised and this brought in the name of English batsman Owais Shah. With Ian, Shihab shared the details of the plan regarding who would do what and what would they do if they batted first or bowled first in the game against Chittagong. Ian was informed of the inclusion of Dhaka team pacer Mahbubul Alam in the playing XI along with the inclusion of leg spinner Kaushal Lokurachchi instead of another player.
But as per the report, the tribunal found it difficult to rely on Ian’s evidence as the English coach cooperated as instructed by the Acsu to assist in fixing the match despite his initial reluctance.
The tribunal found that Ian was obliged to act the way he did as he did not have any choice but assist Acsu.
According to the report, Ian was offered $6000 for fixing by Dhaka Gladiators’ managing director Shihab Chowdhury. For assisting in fixing the match and cooperating with Acsu at the same time, Ian received the $6000 in cash after the match was over. Although Shihab denied any such transaction, Ian stated that he had received this amount.
The receipt was reported to Peter who relayed the information to the head of Acsu in Dubai. This was followed by the Acsu instructing Ian to retain the amount which the tribunal found disturbing. Ian was unable to explain the basis of keeping the money to the tribunal and this made the evidences of Ian and Peter unreliable.
Acsu also presented two other co-conspirators – Mohammad Ashraful and Sri Lanka cricketer Kaushal Lokurachchi as evidence.
However, considering the principle as applied in the case of Ian, the tribunal stated that to give such evidence full weight when it is replied upon to establish the guilt of another accused would be contrary to the sporting imperatives and the principle of fairness and to give those evidences full weight might as well put public’s faith on the integrity and transperancy of the tribunal under serious threat.
Therefore, the tribunal admitted to the evidences but it was unable to give those evidences any weight, termed them unreliable and failed to establish any charge agaisnt the defendants beyond reasonable doubt.
Overall, the tribunal’s report shed light on this whole issue on the basis of the admitted evidence. The investigators acting on behalf of Acsu devised their own methods of investigation which varied from time to time. Notes were kept or recordings were made of the interviews occasionally while no notes or recording of the interviews were made in most cases.
The tribunal also mentioned that there was no data available as to who recorded the witness’s statements for a witness or a defendant, or who was present during the interview. Most of the witnesses’ statements were not witnessed by anyone.
This resulted in the tribunal questioning the dependability of the evidences placed by Acsu.
