The King Commission Interim Report

31. Wilkinson was present when Goolam Rajah told the players what had happened. Rajah told them that Cronjé had said that what was in the transcripts was true, but that his efforts to get rid of Sanjay were not on the transcript. Several of the players were given Cronjé's statement (i.e. the letter) to read, but they did not apparently read it in full. Wilkinson confirmed her presence at the team meeting addressed by Bacher. Wilkinson was also present at the subsequent Press conference on 11 April 2000.

32. Wilkinson continued during this period to be actively involved in various other matters pertaining to the subject of the enquiry but of a peripheral nature.

33. It may be mentioned here that on 13 April 2000, Cronjé's attorneys on their client's behalf issued a statement. It was faxed to Wilkinson by Cronjé's attorney for her to pass on to various media. In fact, according to Wilkinson's notes, Bacher and Green advised Wilkinson that she could not issue a statement on Cronjé's behalf; all she could do was fax it out on the Attorneys' letterhead with her name not appearing on it. This she did. It was released on 13 April 2000. It was carried on the Crickinfo website. It reads:

"I find myself in an awful predicament brought about by my own foolishness and naivety. I realise that I face certain personal difficulties of my own making but what concerns me most is the hurt and disappointment that I have caused my wife and family, cricket fans throughout South Africa, the United Cricket Board and my team-mates in the South African Proteas Cricket side.

Some of my team-mates have come under the spotlight as a result of the police enquiries in India. I know of no member of any side that I have lead who has done anything reprehensible or wrong. Speculation and criticism directed against other members of the team is wrong and unjustified.

As the authorities are at present unwilling to make available the information on which allegations have been made against me, it is unfair and impossible for me to respond to them at this stage. There is to be an enquiry in South Africa and possibly other legal proceedings. Until there is greater clarity concerning the basis of these allegations I have been advised that it is inappropriate for me to comment on them and on the rumours and speculation which are in circulation. All I will say is that I was not involved in fixing or manipulating the results of cricket matches. I always played to win.

The only light that I have seen in these last few dark days has been the magnificent victory of Shaun and his team against Australia last night. I cannot begin to express the emotion I felt when that side emerged victorious and it must be indicative of the morale and commitment of that side to have won so high profile a game under the circumstances in which they found themselves. I am truly proud to have been associated with this side one and all and wish Shaun and the rest of the team nothing but success in the future."

34. In the early afternoon of 11 April 2000, Bacher, Sonn, Wilkinson, Rajah and Green met with the team at their hotel in Durban. Bacher informed the team of the seriousness of the situation and enquired generally of the players whether any had been involved in or had information concerning match fixing. He thereafter asked Gibbs and Bojé specifically whether either had been approached; both repeated their denial as did the others present (Strydom was not present; he was not part of the squad). 35. On 19 April 2000, Rajah, Green, Wilkinson and Bacher met at the latter's residence. Bacher telephoned Gibbs, Strydom and Bojé and asked them if they had been approached by Cronjé. Gibbs and Strydom said they had and agreed to meet with Bacher the next day. Bojé was adamant that he had not been approached and did not attend the meeting with Bacher.

36. On 20 April 2000, Strydom and Gibbs met with Bacher, Green, Wilkinson and Richard Harrison, a member of the UCB executive committee. Wilkinson kept minutes of the meeting; in essence the two players told of approaches made to them by Cronjé in India; they had not accepted these; Boucher and Kallis had also been approached by Cronjé and after the matter broke, Strydom had received a telephone call from Cronjé; he told Cronjé that he could not lie to the "investigation". Cronjé told Strydom not to worry and to admit being approached but not to mention the money. Strydom testified as follows:

"I did, but before I phoned Dr Bacher I gave Hansie a ring, and I just wanted to know what was going on. I just asked him why my name was mentioned, and he said no, well he's just throwing around a few names because he was being pressurised. And he said the stuff that's going on has got nothing to do with the Test, the Test in Mumbai, so I've got nothing to worry about, the whole furore was about the third and fifth, I think, one-day internationals. So he said I've got nothing to worry about."

Shortly thereafter there was a further telephone discussion between Strydom and Cronjé -

"...I was phoned by Hansie the next day, and he just phoned to find out how I was, if I was keeping alright, you know, with all this stuff going on. And so I again asked him why my name was mentioned, and again he said, you know, because he was being pressurised and he just threw around some names. And then just a little thing worried me at the end when he - just before he put the phone down, he just said to me, 'Well' -'cause I said to him I - you know, 'I can't lie, and I'm not prepared to lie in any Commission.' And Hansie said 'It's fine. You can tell exactly what happened, but just don't mention the money.'"

When the matter was made public, Strydom at first denied any participation but subsequently admitted his involvement.

Bacher also spoke telephonically to Boucher who told him of Cronjé's approach to himself, Klusener and Kallis together, and that they had thought it was a joke.

When the revelations were made public Gibbs was named as one of the players involved. On 9 April 2000, Gibbs attended a meeting with Bacher and others, namely, Cronjé, Rajah, Bojé, Bronwyn Wilkinson and Clifford Green.

At the meeting, Dr Bacher asked Gibbs if he had ever been approached and he answered untruthfully in the negative. Just after the meeting and before the Press conference, which followed it, Cronjé said to Gibbs that he should "just deny that I ever approached you and we ever accepted an offer". Gibbs did as he was told. He was asked at the Press conference if he was ever approached and replied in the negative. Gibbs maintained this untruth at a team meeting attended by Bacher. Gibbs gives as his reason for being deceitful that he was scared and was protecting Cronjé. He perpetuated the deceit when approached by Goolam Rajah and by Gary Kirsten his teammate and close friend. Even when Kirsten told him that Strydom, Boucher and Kallis had admitted being approached by Cronjé, Gibbs maintained his untruth.

After the news broke, Cronjé telephoned Gibbs on 16 April 2000 and told him that he could tell Bacher with whom, he had told Cronjé, he was going to have a meeting, that Cronjé approached him but no figures (i.e. sums of money) were discussed and that Gibbs turned down the offer. Cronjé also asked Gibbs to tell Williams to relate the same story i.e. that no amounts had been discussed, and also that Cronjé had not told Williams to bowl badly.

Some time later, Goolam Rajah telephoned Gibbs. Gibbs admitted to him that he had been approached by Cronjé but had declined the offer and that no amount of money had been spoken of. Gibbs said the same to Bacher when they had conversed on the telephone on 19 April 2000.

Gibbs perpetuated this half-truth at subsequent meetings with representatives of the UCB and with his own legal advisors as late as 22 May 2000. It was only on 31 May 2000 at the instigation of Mark Boucher, recently appointed South African vice captain, that Gibbs revealed to him and also to the legal representatives of both Boucher and Gibbs, Attorney Peter Whelan and Michael Fitzgerald S.C, the full extent of his participation in certain events at Nagpur on 19 March 2000.

Williams testified that he had given no further thought to the failed attempt on 19 March 2000 until on 7 or 8 April 2000 he saw in the Press that his name was linked with those of Cronjé, Bojé, Gibbs and Strydom in allegations of match-fixing. He said that he was shocked and panic-stricken at these disclosures.

On about 16 April 2000, Williams received Cronjé's instructions from Gibbs - that he must say that he had not accepted any offer from Cronjé, that he should say that it was all a big joke. At the meeting of 22 May 2000 with his legal representatives, Williams stuck to this story. On 31 May 2000 he received a call from Gibbs to say that he had disclosed the truth to Boucher and that he, Williams should do the same. Boucher confirmed this. The next day Williams told his legal representatives the truth.

Turning to the evidence, the first witness to testify was Neil Andrews, experienced in various fields in the gaming and waging industry who told the Commission of the various ways in which betting on cricket matches can occur, with particular reference to spread-betting. Thus informed, and it may be mentioned that Andrews' evidence was supplemented by that of Marlon Aronstam (of whom more later), the participants in the Commission were better able to understand the intricacies of this somewhat esoteric avocation.

Essentially spread betting involves wagering on a spread of runs, e.g. between 230 - 240, that a team is going to make; the spread can and does change as the innings progresses. It can also involve the scores of individual batsmen.

Another "market" according to Andrews is the number of runs a side will make in the first 15 overs of an ODI.

Line betting is simpler. The punter bets on e.g. a particular batsman going out for less than, say 30 runs.

The opportunities for malpractice are self evident; if e.g. the bookie or punter knows that a particular batsman will contrive to get himself out on a score of less than that stipulated which has been agreed in advance.

Term of Reference A1

By his own admission, "Hansie" Cronjé received payment of between US$ 10 000, 00 - US$ 15 000, 00 in this way:

On 20 January 2000, the day before the first one-day international against Zimbabwe at the Wanderers Cricket Ground, Johannesburg, Cronjé was approached on his way to the nets. This was the first game in the Standard Bank International Series between South Africa, Zimbabwe and England. The approach was by one Hamid Cassim, who was known to Cronjé to whom he remarked "that if he had known of the declaration at Centurion (dealt with infra) he could have made money." Cronjé responded "why didn't you ask?"

Cronjé went with the team to Durban for the fourth one-day international in the series to be played against Zimbabwe on 2 February 2000. The team, was staying in a hotel at Umhlanga Rocks outside Durban. Cassim was at the hotel when Cronjé arrived; he introduced the latter to a man whom Cronjé knew of as Sanjay; Cronjé was not told whether Sanjay was a "bookie" or a punter. (Sanjay's surname is Chowla or Chawla; he is an Indian national resident in the United Kingdom).

To continue in Cronjé's own words

"Hamid and Sanjay indicated that Sanjay wanted me to supply them with information, but did not specify what information. They also said that I could make a lot of money if we would lose a match. I said that I was not prepared to do it unless we were assured of a place in the final of the triangular series. I was spinning them along as I did not think that I had any real intention of throwing a match. Sanjay handed me a cell-phone box containing US dollars in case I changed my mind."

Sanjay also mentioned $100,000 as being what he was prepared to pay for a "fixed" match; the fact that Sanjay mentioned this sum only came out towards the end of Cronjé's evidence.

Thus Cronjé was promised a substantial amount of money in case, as he testified, he changed his mind and agreed to deliberately lose or "throw" a match. Cronjé had told Sanjay and Cassim that he was not prepared to throw a match unless South Africa was assured of a place in the final. (It is significant that on first meeting Sanjay, Cronjé chose to "spin him along" rather than reject his overtures out of hand).

Cronjé explains this as follows:

"It was not initially my intention to throw any games or to fix results: driven by greed and stupidity, and the lure of easy money, I thought that I could feed Sanjay information and keep the money without having to do anything to influence matches. In fact there was no manipulation of games or results in South Africa, and I supplied no information in respect of the matches in South Africa.

I realise now that the purpose of the payment was to "hook" me for the Indian tour. As set out below, on the Indian tour in February and March 2000. I was increasingly pushed to manipulate results, and found that I had got into something from which it was very difficult to get out."

Further light was shed on the meeting in Durban by the evidence of Cassim. He it was who flew down to Durban from Johannesburg to arrange a meeting between Cronjé and Sanjay (at the latter's request) at the hotel at which both were staying. In fact Sanjay paid for Cassim's flight from Johannesburg to Durban return, a flight which Cassim made despite considerable personal inconvenience.

Cassim was present at the discussion between Sanjay and Cronjé; he professed to be watching cricket on TV at the time; he took no part in the discussion, but was able to recall what was discussed in the approximately 10 minutes that the conversation between Cronjé and Sanjay lasted.

Cassim and Cronjé are substantially ad idem as to the contents of the discussion. Sanjay wanted a "forecast which way the match was going to go, looking at the pitch and conditions" (Cronjé in evidence in chief, reading from a prepared statement).

In his affidavit Cassim goes further; he says the following:

" Sanjay and Hansie Cronjé thereafter had a conversation for approximately 10 minutes relating to cricket. They were talking inter alia about match forecasting, pitch conditions, team selection, the conditions upon winning the toss. They were further discussing the number of runs in one-day international cricket matches. I also heard them discussing team selection and who would be batting in which order and who would be bowling."

Cassim confirmed this in his evidence in chief, confirming also the correctness of a question put to him by his Counsel, Adv. Witz:

MR WITZ: And you told the Commissioner that they were also discussing the number of runs in the one-day games and you also heard them talking about team selection; who would be batting; which order; and who would be bowling. And this related in particular to the one-day games. Would that be correct?

MR CASSIM: Correct."

(more on Cassim infra)

Under questioning by the Commissioner and Brendon Manca, junior counsel for the UCB (to Jeremy Gauntlett S.C.), Cassim confirmed that Cronjé and Sanjay were discussing "match forecasting"; he explained this phenomenon as follows:

COMMISSIONER: What is meant by match forecasting, what is meant by that? Who is going to win and who is going to lose?

MR CASSIM: No I think match - they were discussing like what scores will go. If my memory serves me correct, the pitch. He was asking players that were going to play. I mean forecasting, I can't recall the forecasting part that's why I am just trying to think carefully. Well as far as I can remember it was not who was going to win and who is going to lose.

COMMISSIONER: Well then what is the forecasting, how many runs a team is going to make? How many runs a team is going to make? How many runs an individual is going to make? How many runs a bowler is going to give away in his ten overs?

MR CASSIM: I think how many runs the team was going to make.

MR MANCA: You say in your statement you also heard them discussing team selection and who would be batting in which order and who would be bowling. Do you see that in your statement?

MR CASSIM: Correct."

"COMMISSIONER: Forecasting how many runs the team is going to make that seems to me to be running very close to match-fixing, what would you think about that?

MR CASSIM: I have never been involved in betting so it was very difficult for me to think what was happening.

COMMISSIONER: What do you think now?

MR CASSIM: What I gather in all the information that's floating around there could have been possibly something happening between the two of them."

Adv. Batohi, Counsel, with Mr. Vincent Botto, leading the evidence, took up the subject. Cassim was asked what Cronjé and Sanjay were saying about forecasting and, having again asserted that he was not a "betting man" in order to explain his supposed ignorance of the full import of what was being discussed, replied that forecasting related to what scores the two teams were going to make and to "who would probably win". Cassim told of Cronjé and Sanjay discussing possible scores at King's Park, Durban - the side batting first would probably get 250 runs and for the side batting second "the ball will swing and you will get less".

All this was in respect of the following day's match, an ODI between South Africa and Zimbabwe. It is necessary to quote at some length, Cronjé's evidence under questioning by Adv. Batohi:

"MR CRONJé: Sanjay said to me that he is a person that likes to put money on cricket, he has a particular interest in that, and that he wanted me to give him some information that will be helpful for the one-day series and he also asked me if there was a possibility of maybe losing one match where he could make a lot of money.

MS BATOHI: Yes, carry on. What happened after that?

MR CRONJé: He handed me some money.

MS BATOHI: You told him that you were not prepared to do it unless you were assured of a place in the final, is that correct?

MR CRONJé: that is correct.

MS BATOHI: Why did you tell him that, is that what you really intended to do?

MR CRONJé: I think the reason for telling him that was that I tried to give him a fair chance on a game in case we had actually qualified for a place in the final, and then played an understrength side in the triangular, but I don't think that I ever would have gone through with that, I think I was spinning, not I think, I know I was spinning him along as I never even had any players on my side, and never had spoken to any players before, but I gave him the impression that I have.

MS BATOHI: You see, this is what I don't understand, Mr Cronjé, you don't have any intention of doing what he expects of you, but you are prepared to take the money?

MR CRONJé: That is correct, I thought I could take the money, give him a promise of something in the future and then give him information in the meantime, just feeding him snippets of information in the meantime.

more...

Mail Cricket Editor