Sports

Salman looks to challenge ICC’s decision

Former captain Salman Butt advised to appeal before Court of Arbitration after ICC rejects appeal without hearing it.

Umar Farooq December 18, 2010

LAHORE:

Salman Butt’s legal team has advised the former Test captain to appeal before the Court of Arbitration for Sports after the International Cricket Council (ICC) rejected a response filed by the suspended opener.

The legal team, which has had little success against the ICC believed the governing body was biased and the case’s result is predetermined. The ICC, after appointing a three-man tribunal to hear the appeals of Salman together with Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif, rejected the preliminary response without so much as hearing the former captain’s counsels.

According to the legal firm, sought by Salman, the response raised objections to the jurisdiction, composition and process of the ICC tribunal before a final response could be submitted.

“The rejection reflects on the merits of the case and leaves no doubt as to the cricket governing body’s pre-determination, as earlier publically desired by [ICC Chief Executive Officer] Haroon Lorgat, which cannot be described in any other manner than a pre-arranged ‘fix’,” stated the firm.

According to Salman, his final response is yet to be filed under the ICC dictate through his UK counsel Yasin Patel, who will be representing him before the ICC tribunal in Doha in the full hearing that takes place from December 6.

Unfair composition of the tribunal

The Express Tribune understands that the objection raised by Salman was the inclusion of the ICC Code of Conduct Commissioner Michael Beloff as the head in the three-man tribunal formed.

The objection raised in the response states that Beloff, who earlier heard the case against his provisional suspension before rejecting the appeal, will be biased after the same evidence is presented in January.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 19th, 2010.

COMMENTS (7)

pakee | 13 years ago | Reply Its obvious that target is Amir basically and also Asif, the cricket all around is not so pure, but they can't accept the skills of Paki seamers who actually were devastating England then. I remeber they also said 3rd ODI is fixed, ICC & Lorgat came straight away that we have proof for fixing, later nothing was found. What ICC did against Raina of India, he too was found suspicious. Any investigation? Amir was banned for suspicion as we are still awaiting proof.

Dr.abdul mominkhan | 13 years ago | Reply Dear sir, in my view all is wrong,They didnot want, that three player play in coming world cup all froad is going on and the goverment of pakistan, why stop thier mouth, no body can take interest in this matter.poeple of pakistan have lot of interest in it. they should bycott the coming world cup and leave the I.C.C. BAHARAT ALSO DID NOT WANT.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

Turab Saigol | 13 years ago | Reply imtiaz sb. . with due respect, 'will be followed' further proves my point, that it has 'not' been followed while rendering this decision.

imtiaz shaikh | 13 years ago | Reply i am sure the principle of audi alteram partem will be followed in this case as personal hearings are scheduled in second week of january 2011.the lawyers can raise all kind of objections and arguments before the tribunal.

Turab Saigol | 13 years ago | Reply No offense taken Ben. I greatly respect your point of view; however, my main objection is to the method that was employed in rendering this decision. Having a slight background in law (for whatever its worth), I do recall that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (i.e. notice and hearing has to be given before taking a decision) is a fundamental principle to be followed whenever one is up for trial. The method of this decision coupled with Mr. Haroon Lorgat's statement that he would be disappointed in case the Tribunal does not find the Players guilty, leaves one with no doubt as to the outcome of the hearing. In addition, from what I gather from newsreports, counsel(s) for Mr. Salman Butt have questioned amongst other, the evidence presented which they feel has to be independently and forensically determined to ascertain its authenticity and accuracy (especially in light of the detailed & extremely questionable history of the NOTW); before charging the Players against it.

Ben | 13 years ago | Reply Tureb, not trying to be rude here but the evidence against Salman Butt and Mohammed Amir and Asif is very strong that the Met Police have already handed two pieces of filed evidence to the crown prosecution service and with the rediculous amount of money found in Butt's locker, the timing and also the size of the no balls were absurd as well etc, so all the evidence is against them. Thats probably why the ICC have rejected the appeals and Butts initial response letter to the ICC, not because they are biased but it's because they have so much evidence against them.

Turab Saigol | 13 years ago | Reply Having followed the spot-fixing allegation saga since the beginning, I agree whole-heartedly with salman butt's counsel(s). How can the ICC without hearing salman butt or his counsel(s), reject the ‘preliminary’ response which contained objections to the jurisdiction, composition and process of the Tribunal. Instead of ruling on the preliminary objections contained in the ‘preliminary’ response, the Tribunal ruling reflects on the entire case and shows its pre-determination and bias. Salman should appeal this biased and pre-determined decision to the Int’l Court of Arbitration for Sports. In addition, the Final Response was to be filed regardless (which i believe has been filed by one Yasin Patel, a UK based lawyer), so saying that the ICC has asked Salman Butt to file a 'fresh' or ‘second’ response is misplaced.

Replying to X