PCB Legal Advisor explains what led to Umer Akmal’s three-year-ban
Umer Akmal reportedly tried to justify his actions.
Yesterday, the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) banned middle-order batsman, Umer Akmal, for three years from all forms of cricket for failing to report a fixing approach from bookies before the start of Pakistan Super League (PSL).
It was the first time that PCB banned a player for three years for not reporting the approach from bookies. Before this, players such as Muhammed Irfan and Muhammad Nawaz were banned for a year and two months respectively in similar cases.
However, in Umer Akmal’s case, lack of remorse led to his 3-year-ban. Umer Akmal reportedly tried to justify his actions.
“He was repeatedly attempting to justify his folly,” Taffazul Rizvi, the PCB counsel, told the media.
“His reply was confused, he neither accepted his position nor denied it. He did admit the questionable incidents yet was offering frivolous justifications for non-reporting. When you admit the violation, you leave yourself to the mercy of the tribunal. There is no general exception in the anti-corruption code that you report on your wish or convenience. You either report or do not report.”
“Even today, the honorable judge asked him [Akmal] on a clear note if he accepts his indiscretions, but he insisted on justifying his failures,” Rizvi said.
“He was charged on two counts, for two different unrelated incidents while Mohammad Irfan and others had completely different cases. Irfan got a lesser ban because he had accepted his mistake and agreed to the imposed sanctioned. But Umar Akmal didn’t accept his omission and tried to justify why he didn’t report.”
“This three-year ban on the basis of non-reporting is considered appropriate. The PCB was asking for a stiffer sentence. It’s high time that duration of the ban should be increased because it’s very clear that players are not learning the lessons as much as they should have. So as far as the legal side is concerned, I am very satisfied as the duration of the ban is reasonable, justified and proportionate.”
What are your views on this? Share in the comments bar below.