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.

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.

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. Atas 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.

The three possible sources of corroboration that seemed have offered themselves too are too weak

to prove the charge or support one of Atas stories. The sources are as follows:

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.

Rashid Latifs statement against Wasim Akram. It is just his personal opinion. While this

Commission gives Rashid Latifs 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

Rashids 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.

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.

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

incriminating object.