Thoughts from London

Straight bat or hasty cover up?
Sri Lanka's folklore regales us with tales of the idiosyncratic judgements delivered by King Kekilla. To judge by the even stranger manner in which Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) conducts its inquiries and passes judgement, King Kekilla appears a paragon of judicial virtue.

Readers might recall that last September 17 Sri Lanka's match against England at the ICC Championship Trophy in Southampton was interrupted by rain and had to be continued next day, with the game evenly poised.

Some Sri Lankans residing here who were staying overnight at the same hotel as the Sri Lanka team, claimed that certain cricketers including a few playing in that particular game, were drinking late into the night in a second floor room.

This story later gained currency in the Sri Lankan community as it was said that some were privy to the happenings at one point that night.

My weekly column said such stories were circulating here and those rumours should be investigated so that they could either be laid to rest or punitive action taken against those responsible.

Fearful of a possible cover up it was also urged that any inquiry be conducted "vigorously and impartially."

That column was accompanied by a comment from team manager Ajith Jayasekera who dismissed the allegations as "rubbish and baseless" He said cricket officials, the team captain and he had returned to the hotel at 9.30 pm after a dinner.

As I said in a later column Jayasekera was completely silent about what he did after returning to the hotel. He said nothing whatsoever about checking whether the cricketers were in or out or what they were doing. He claimed that as he knew the cricketers, who were adults, well they would not misbehave.

Then on November 15, Duleep Mendis, the chief executive of SLC wrote to me care of The Sunday Times. The newspaper replied saying that I was in Kerala, India conducting a journalism-training workshop for the Commonwealth Press Union and they would forward the letter to me.

Shortly after returning to London I wrote to Mendis explaining the delay in replying and pointing out that there was no Sunday Times on 29th October 2004, as he claimed, since it was a Friday. A silly point, really. But it shows carelessness and an indifference to accuracy and fact that manifests itself during this whole sorry episode.

His letter not only asks me whether I am in possession of any evidence but "goes further to make certain judgemental observations to which I reserve the right to reply at an appropriate time in an appropriate forum, " I said in reply.

On the substantive issue, I wrote that I had no intimation of any inquiry nor had I been informed of it by SLC. The first I heard of it was when Mendis wrote saying that at an inquiry held the Manager, Coach and the Captain of the team "submitted reports denying such an alleged incident."

Since I had been kept totally in the dark about an inquiry and I was now being belatedly asked for evidence, I informed Mendis that I need to acquaint myself first with the terms of reference of the inquiry, its nature and scope and the procedure.
I requested information on the following:

Whether the inquiry was held by one or more persons and who they were.
When and where the inquiry was held
Whether it was a closed door hearing or open to the media
Whether the manager, coach and captain were simply asked to submit their reports or whether they were questioned at the inquiry

Whether others were summoned to appear before it.
I said that while I would like to co-operate at reaching the truth, I regretted to note that the tone of his letter seemed to suggest the SLC had already pre-judged the issue.

Given the good relations between SLC and The Sunday Times, I said I would extend my co-operation, within the bounds of professional ethics. The very next day, December 15, SLC chief executive Mendis e-mailed me (not once but twice) saying "A detailed response will be emailed to you in due course."

Imagine my surprise then when I read in wire service reports that two cricketers Avishka Gunawardene and Kaushal Lokuarachchi, had been cleared of "drunken misconduct" as alleged by a local Sunday newspaper (far from the truth), for lack of evidence.

Infinitely worse were the words attributed to Duleep Mendis. "No one was prepared to give evidence and there was absolutely no evidence to substantiate the article's allegations."

I immediately e-mailed Mendis expressing my surprise that he said no one was prepared to give evidence and reminding him of his reply in which he undertook to give me a detailed response.

He replied me on January 22 completely ignoring his earlier e-mail about a "detailed response" and talked of "allegations against two players of our national team."(also inaccurate.)

"I reiterate", he said with magisterial portentousness, "that there was no evidence against the players concerned, save certain newspaper reports which made allegations by innuendo, which can hardly form the basis for an inquiry."

He then goes on to say that since "no evidence from you or any one else was forth coming and the only evidence available was that of the Team management and players which denied the occurrence of such an incident whatsoever as alleged by media reports."

Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said in Wonderland, and I don't mean the linguistic aberrations. Mendis derisively dismisses newspaper allegations and says they can "hardly form the basis of an inquiry." So then why was an inquiry held? Were there other allegations, besides newspaper reports, that prompted SLC to do so, since it has publicly announced holding a disciplinary inquiry? Or is the public to conclude that all this talk about a disciplinary inquiry and statements to the media are a charade to hoodwink the cricket-loving public?

The SLC cannot have it both ways. Either there was an inquiry despite its condescending remarks or there was none. If there was one, then SLC appears to have stood justice on its head. The canons of natural justice require a complainant or defendant must be heard. In this case the so-called inquiry obtained denials first from the team and management and then sought any corroborative evidence on the allegations.

The violation of natural justice is aggravated by the fact that the promised detailed response was denied to me after SLC had created a legitimate expectation that I would be heard.

If an inquiry was intended why did the SLC not place a notice in the media regarding its intentions and inviting persons with any relevant information to appear before it? SLC triumphantly claims that no person was prepared to give evidence. How was anybody expected to know that SLC was indeed holding an inquiry if there is no public announcement? As I stated, those who knew anything about the happenings that night were Sri Lankans living here. How were they expected to know about an inquiry when SLC played it so close to its collective chest?

Even more curious is the chief executive's remarks last week. When a Sunday Times sports reporter asked him why SLC failed to answer my questions despite an earlier undertaking in writing, Mendis reportedly said that I had sought clarifications which SLC were not ready to comply with.

Why? They were simple enough questions anybody expecting to appear at an inquiry had a right to know. Surely to refuse to answer questions like who constituted the inquiry panel, when and where the inquiry was held cannot surely subvert the SLC unless it had something to hide. Why did SLC adopt an omnibus approach to my questions? And if it did not want to answer why did it not inform me so weeks ago without belated explanations now?

The only reasonable answer is that SLC did not want it to be public knowledge, for some reason. It begs the question why.

SLC is not some private body that could behave arbitrarily and indiscriminately. Its activities are a matter of public interest and public concern for SLC sits in the councils of the ICC as the representative of Sri Lanka. The cricket teams whether they play abroad or in Sri Lanka, are national teams.

So SLC's conduct is a matter of public interest and as such it must be accountable and its conduct transparent. National cricket is not its private fiefdom.

Another crucial issue. Why was there an inquiry against Gunawardene and Lokuarachchi. Who named them? Not I and, anyway allegations in the newspaper could "hardly form the basis of an inquiry," SLC claims. So how come they became 'accused' in an inquiry that would surely remain the No 1 smell in the civic nostril. And who accused the cricketers of inebriation? Not I.

Cricket is referred to as a gentlemen's game. That was a long, long time ago. Let the public judge whether the "inquiry" was fair and impartial or a blatant cover up.

Back to Columns