HELD ON: 23-06-2000



COMMISSIONER: Are we ready to continue? I am talking to the legal people - all ready? Thank you.


Now MR CRONJE I think it is appropriate for me now at this stage of your evidence to remind you of what the task is that is on my shoulders, not only to make findings before this Commission but also to be able to be satisfied that you are telling the whole truth. I am not issuing you a warning, still less is it a threat, it is a friendly reminder. You must assist me and cooperate with me to enable me to make the necessary recommendation to the prosecuting authority.

Now having said that to you let me get to the One-day series in India in March of this year that Ms Batohi was talking about. You have told me that you have had a number of telephone conversations with Sanjay, did you in any of those discussions, in any of those conversations discuss the first One-day international at Cochin?

MR CRONJE: Sanjay was staying in the same hotel as what we were staying in Cochin and as I said in my affidavit, I was trying to avoid any telephonic conversation with him the night before, but the morning of the match, I was reminded that he would like to speak to me. I went downstairs to breakfast, had breakfast, wanted to stay away from him, but on the way out, I picked up the telephone at reception, phoned his room and said "yes, it is okay, we can go ahead". I rammed off five or six names, I think it was five names and said that we will keep the score under about 250 and that we will try and loose the game. That is what I said to Sanjay.

COMMISSIONER: That is before the game. Was there any further discussion with him about Cochin, the game, either during the game or after the game?

MR CRONJE: The night that I got back to the hotel, Sanjay called me and was obviously not very happy with me because South Africa scored 301/3 instead of less than 250. The reason why we scored more is because I didn't in fact speak to any of the players and none of the players were aware that there is anything on the cards.

COMMISSIONER: You say Sanjay was not happy because you hadn't fulfilled your undertaking to him? Was there any discussion about any of the players being dissatisfied, was there any discussion of any monetary sums that would - allegedly owing, can you tell me?

MR CRONJE: The night after I got back to the hotel, I just said to Sanjay that he must keep his side of the bargain, then we will keep our side of the bargain.

But we didn't really specifically go into detail, he was just very cross with me that we didn't score less than 250 as I led him to believe that we would do. During the following game at Jamshapur, he phoned me again and not only wanting to get information, but wanting to actually influence the result and the excuse that I used in this instance was that I won't be able to get to any of the players, because they are upset with me because they have not been financially paid, using that as an excuse to keep him away from me.

COMMISSIONER: You say you told him that the players were cross with you because they hadn't been financially paid, were numbers mentioned, any amount, any figures?

MR CRONJE: I am not hundred percent sure what the figures were that were discussed, I am actually not even sure whether numbers were discussed before the Cochin game, as it was done in such a rush.

COMMISSIONER: When you mentioned this to Sanjay, did he undertake to make amends, to make any money available?

MR CRONJE: Sanjay said to me "not to worry, we've got an undertaking, he has given me a deposit as well" and he is also going to transfer some funds to my account in London, "not to worry", he said "not to worry, we will sort out the others as well".

COMMISSIONER: Would you like to continue your cross-examination, Ms Batohi?


Thank you Mr Commissioner. MR CRONJE, you just mentioned just now that Sanjay said he would transfer funds to your London account, did you ever check during the series to see whether any funds were transferred into your London account?

MR CRONJE: Ms Batohi, I never bothered to check my account in the UK simply because I never expected any money to go in as we never fulfilled our obligation to Sanjay.

MS BATOHI: Did he at any stage tell you that he was going to deposit some money into your account "tomorrow"?

MR CRONJE: He said to me, I am not sure whether he used the word "tomorrow", but he said he will at some stage, it wasn't for him a big problem, because he would be in London and he would then deposit the money. I am not sure whether he used the word "tomorrow".

MS BATOHI: Towards the latter part of yesterday, we seemed to be having a bit of problem trying to recollect what happened during the conversation.

I don't know, maybe it was a long day on your part and given the fact that you are having a bit of a problem with your memory, etc, and the evidence of your psychologist, I understand what you have been going through, so I thought perhaps we can put it down to the fact that it was a very long day and you were having tremendous difficulty remembering what had happened as regards the transcripts are concerned. Notwithstanding the difficulty that we have with these transcripts, you MR CRONJE are in the best position absolutely to explain those transcripts to us.

Whether they are correct or not, you are in the best position to tell us that and just before we get on to actually dealing with that, you were particularly upset yesterday about the fact that it was trial in the media, etc, and things were published in the media, and I accept the media aren't always very accurate about what they publish, but I am just wondering, you made your first statement, the letter, let's call it, the one that you wrote in Durban that night of the, well the early hours of the 11th and you called Rory Steyn up to your room. Am I correct that the reason why at that stage you decided to tell it all, is because it had been revealed in the press?

MR CRONJE: I think that is fair to say, yes.

MS BATOHI: So, would it also be fair to assume then that what you thought was in the press, was in fact true, what was in the press, was in fact true?

MR CRONJE: In my letter, I tried in seven pages, to explain as best I could that what is in the press, was in fact not hundred percent true, and I tried to put it in the best possible way, in seven pages, at ten past twelve in the morning, in my possible light, in trying to explain a little bit more where it came from.

Yes, I received money from Sanjay, yes, I spoke to him on the telephone, yes, I spoke to two players which I didn't mention in the handwritten letter, simply because I didn't want to implicate them and at that stage, in my opinion Gibbs and Williams had done actually nothing wrong, because Williams never ever went on the field trying to bowl badly and Gibbs, although I never told him not to do it, I believe never went through with the plan. I only spoke to him on one occasion.

At that stage in the media, I was being accused of influencing all five results in the one day internationals and I wanted to put as best I can in seven pages, that that wasn't in fact the case.

MS BATOHI: MR CRONJE, I follow what you are saying but I think, just listen carefully to the questions and try your best, just to answer the questions, if it is possible, without going into any long explanations otherwise it might just take a bit long.

What I am saying to you is that I am not talking about the other media reports, I am talking only about the transcripts that were released into the press, I have a copy of something that was in the Argus on the 8th of April 2000, transcript that appeared in the Argus and they were appearing in a number of other newspapers as well.

But from what I have in front of me, what appeared in the newspaper is exactly what appears from page 2 through to the end of the internet, I beg your pardon, Interpol transcript that was handed in yesterday, are you following me, MR CRONJE? So it is clear then, am I correct in assuming that when you wrote that letter as you call it, of seven pages, you had seen everything that appeared, well what had appeared in the newspaper, in the press, you had read those transcripts in the press? Can I assume that you had seen that when you wrote your letter?

MR CRONJE: As I said the only transcripts that I saw, were the transcripts that were given to me, or shown to me by Mr Clifford Green and Ms Wilkinson in Durban. I did not actually read it in the press.

MS BATOHI: Alright, and if need be we can perhaps call Ms Wilkinson or Mr Green to in fact testify that they would have shown you what we have on pages 2 through to the end of the Interpol statement? Are you prepared to accept that that was what was shown to you?

MR CRONJE: I will trust them, yes.

MS BATOHI: Now you say that you tried in this letter of yours to explain what had really happened and that some of the transcripts were true. I would like to go through this very, very carefully from page 2 of the Interpol transcript and you tell me, line by line, if necessary what in that transcript is true and what isn't.

MR CRONJE: Ms Batohi, the only difficulty I have in answering your question is that if you can tell me on what date these conversations took place, then I can more or less put them into place. You see the difficulty I have Ms Batohi, and I am not trying to be, going on where we were yesterday, if you look at this page, I am not sure what we call it because there is no number on it, it says -

"You can come in. I can come in" Yeh. I am in 346."

The next line it says -

"Alright, no more. Okay bye. See you in two minutes. Yeh. Okay. Okay, you are back in London? Yeh, I am in London."

You must understand Ms Batohi, the difficulty I have in answering this to you line by line and telling you what is true and what is not true, I went through this last night again because I am also trying to help you, but if somebody can just say to me that this took place in Jamshapur or this took place in Delhi or this took place in Mumbai or this took place in Beroda or this took place in I think the last test match was in Nagpur, then it is able for me to try and recall and try and think about the targets, the amounts, the players, the names that I threw around. Are you following me, Ms Batohi, I am not trying to be obstructive of anything, Judge, I am trying to help in the best possible way.

But if you look at certain sections of it, it is easier, if you look at other sections in my opinion, it has been cut and pasted and put into, edited into certain places.

MS BATOHI: Alright, let's make this as easy as possible. You go to the sections that you think is easy to deal with and deal with it in the best way you can.

COMMISSIONER: Before you start that, there is reason to suppose that this first conversation took place when you were occupying room 346 as I had suggested to you yesterday of the hotel the Taj Palace. I was wrong in saying Mumbai, it was New Delhi. Does that help you to identify it?

MR CRONJE: Yes, we certainly stayed in the Taj Palace in Delhi.

MR DICKERSON: Mr Commissioner, if I could perhaps observe at this stage that the difficulty, and it is a difficulty which we raised yesterday, it is precisely that which is being addressed by MR CRONJE. The very basis of the question which you have put to MR CRONJE, assumes that this conversation on page 1 of the alleged Interpol transcript, is a single conversation. In fact the very content of that indicates that it cannot be such.

It precedes by remarking with the remark on the part of Sanjay that he is in the lobby of the hotel and he will drop in in a few minutes. Three inches lower down, supposedly in the same conversation Sanjay records that he is in London, that with respect, is exactly the difficulty and that is the reason with respect why one cannot address questions on these transcripts. Nobody, neither the prosecution, nor ourselves, nor MR CRONJE has any idea of when, where and in what manner these transcripts were compiled.

COMMISSIONER: MR CRONJE, forgetting then for the moment the transcripts, will you be good enough to tell me, give me the details of the conversation between you and Sanjay which took place, if one did take place, and I seem to think you agreed with me there was a conversation at the Taj Palace hotel in New Delhi, some time in March 2000?

MR CRONJE: We were now 2-0 down in the one day series, we were 2-0 down in the one day series and staying in Delhi, Sanjay told me that he was on his way back to London and he wanted to know if there was any chance of us influencing or helping him with the betting on the third match.

I thought I made it quite clear to him that we were 2-0 down and the reason why I came over to India was to win the series, and not to in fact lose it.

I used the story that the coach had called us together and had even spoken to us and said to us that there is rumour that players are not giving their best and that we must stop this now, to try and get Sanjay to understand that he must now back off.

He then phoned me a couple of times again and asking and asking and asking and I do believe as some stage I gave him the impression "okay, I will go and speak to certain players and I will go and find out from them and I will try and see what I can do", even after I told him that I was not interested.

Later that evening, he phoned me again saying to me that "what is happening now, what is going on" and I said to him "it is definitely off, there is no point in going there." If you were to ask Mark Boucher what I said to him the morning of the match at Faridabad, which is the third One-day international, it is just outside of Delhi, my remark was to him that I've got a good feeling that I am going to win man of the match today, and that is in fact what I did. I won man of the match during that game.

When we got back to the hotel that evening, Sanjay had in fact not left for London yet, but he came up to the hotel, to the team room which was on the fourth floor, I think it was 455 if I am not mistaken, because it was in the corner of that hotel, he came in and shook my hand and said "that was a great innings" and he was glad that we had won.

COMMISSIONER: Ms Batohi, there is obvious validity to Mr Dickerson's remarks about this transcript. He couldn't have been in the hotel in Delhi and also back in London. I think your cross-examination should perhaps proceed as my initial questions to MR CRONJE were pitched, without direct reference to the tapes.

Let's talk about the conversations and find out the extent of MR CRONJE's recollection.

MS BATOHI: MR CRONJE, dealing with the last match in Nagpur, did you have a conversation with Mr Sanjay about that match?

MR CRONJE: I spoke to Sanjay obviously during the fourth match as well, he was quite keen to find out whether he can get involved, that was in Beroda. I told him "not at all because the South African side wants to win the series", it is now 2-1 and we obviously wanted to win the series.

We then lost that match and we got to the last One- day international, I am not sure what the, did you say Nagpur, we got to Nagpur and Sanjay called me again on, I think it was my room telephone and wanted to know if we could proceed. At this stage I gave in and I said "yes, I will speak to some of the players" and that was the conversation of the night before the match.

MS BATOHI: Did you at any stage on the telephone speak to him and tell him that you had spoken to Gibbs and that he was going to make less than 20?

MR CRONJE: The night before I gave him the impression that I had spoken to Gibbs and that he would make less than 20.

MS BATOHI: Well, did you give him that impression or did you tell him that?

MR CRONJE: I told him that, but that was not true at that stage.

MS BATOHI: And did you also decide that the score would be at least 250, during that conversation?

MR CRONJE: If my memory serves me correct, it was also during that conversation that I said to him that if India bat, we will try to give them more than 250 runs and if South Africa bats, we will try and keep it under 240, but that if we do get 270, then the deal is still on.

MS BATOHI: Did you also during that conversation tell him that the guys will want 125 each?

MR CRONJE: I think that throughout the one day series, that the figure that I used was around 25, yes.

MS BATOHI: Did you also use that figure during that conversation, 25 each for the guys?

MR CRONJE: It could very well be, yes.

MS BATOHI: What does 25 mean?

MR CRONJE: 25 means US dollars.

MS BATOHI: $25 or $25 000?

MR CRONJE: $25 000 Ma'am.

MS BATOHI: And did you agree then, did you tell Sanjay, it may not have been, you may not have spoken to players, but did you tell Sanjay then that during that conversation, that the players would want $25 000 each and did you speak to him about what you would get paid?

MR CRONJE: He said, that conversation took place the morning of the game, I think you are confusing the two conversations. There was a conversation the evening and there was a conversation in the morning. The conversation I was just speaking to you now, refers to the evening before I had spoken to Gibbs and Williams.

MS BATOHI: So did you speak to him the following morning about what you would get?

MR CRONJE: That is correct.

MS BATOHI: And did you make a suggestion to him at any stage during either of these conversations that he should give you $140 000 for yourself as well as all the other players involved?

MR CRONJE: I gave him the impression that morning that he should pay me $140 000 for everybody yes.

MS BATOHI: That is US dollars, $140 000?


MS BATOHI: And during that, either one of the conversations, did Sanjay say something about sorting something out for the previous games as well?

MR CRONJE: I am not sure whether it was through that conversation or not, but he definitely said that he will sort out something for the previous games, yes.

MS BATOHI: What you have just told me, MR CRONJE, seems to be conversation that is on page 2 of the Interpol transcript, starting on line 4.

MR DICKERSON: Mr Commissioner, I thought we had reached a stage where Ms Batohi recognised that reference to the tapes was inappropriate?

COMMISSIONER: Yes, I think Ms Batohi, in all fairness to MR CRONJE, you should keep away from the tapes. You are making common cause, the two of you, without reference to the tapes and you can, if you wish to refer to what, to the content of them, but without reference to the fact that that is the tape. You can put the factual position as you understand it, to MR CRONJE, and he will do his best to answer truthfully, I am sure.

MS BATOHI: As it pleases you, Mr Commissioner. MR CRONJE your evidence has been that the following morning you spoke to Mr Gibbs and Mr Williams and offered them $15 000 each, why did you offer them $15 000 and make the arrangement with Sanjay that they would get paid $25 000 each?

MR CRONJE: Originally before the story broke, I was under the impression that I offered them R70 000 each, the same figure that I mentioned to Mr Strydom in Mumbai, but when Herschelle and Henry testified, they mentioned $15 000. I remember walking out of the room saying to Herschelle that I will see what I can get, I will try and get him up as high as I can, and I will see what I can get.

MS BATOHI: I don't quite follow that answer, MR CRONJE. You had on the previous night agreed with Mr Sanjay that the players would get $25 000 each, that was only the previous night. The following morning you speak to the players and offer them $15 000 each? At that point, why did you do that when you had already arranged with Sanjay that they would get $25 000 each?

MR CRONJE: Ms Batohi, if my memory serves me correct, I offered the players R70 000 which converted into, I have converted it for them on their behalf, I said at about 5/1, it is about $15 000, but I will see what I can get for you, I will try and bump it up.

MS BATOHI: You are still not answering my question, MR CRONJE. Your evidence is that on the previous night you had agreed with Sanjay, forget about the conversions, etc, you had agreed with him that the players would get $25 000 each, okay. The following day, you offer Mr Gibbs and Mr Williams $15 000 each, why did you do that?

MR CRONJE: I offered them the equivalent of $15 000 and on my way out of the room, I told them that I will try and get it up as high as I can.

MS BATOHI: But you had already agreed with Sanjay that they would get $25 000?

MR CRONJE: Maybe I was trying to cut something for myself.

COMMISSIONER: I think MR CRONJE, one must be realistic, I think that is what you were doing?

MR CRONJE: If that is the way you see it Judge, I am not going to question you on that.

COMMISSIONER: It is not the way I see it, you tell me how I should see it?

MR CRONJE: Judge I went into the room, I offered them an amount in South African rands, which I converted with them into US dollars. On the way out I said to Herschelle, "don't worry, I will try and get it up as high as I can". When I made the second call to Sanjay, that morning, I said to Sanjay $25 000 for each player and $140 000 for everyone together.

COMMISSIONER: Did you then communicate to Gibbs and Williams that you had got it up from $15 000 to $25 000?

MR CRONJE: I did not communicate anything with Gibbs or Williams after that conversation in the room as we were at breakfast and in the bus and in the change room and I did not want to speak to them again in those lines. The only time that I communicated with Mr Gibbs was when we were out on the field and with Mr Williams when I called him across at lunch and said "the deal is off".

COMMISSIONER: So they were under the impression that their cut was going to be $15 000?

MR CRONJE: They were under the impression that the deal was going to be $15 000 but I said to them that I would try to get it as high as I can, yes.

COMMISSIONER: I still don't understand why you said you would try to get it as high as you could, when in fact you knew that provision had already been made for $25 000?

MR CRONJE: Provision was made, but the deal hadn't actually been done at that stage.

I hope that satisfies your question.

COMMISSIONER: Well, seeing you have asked me, I will leave it to Ms Batohi to follow it up if she chooses to do so.

MR CRONJE: Thank you Judge.

MS BATOHI: Well, I am not going to belabour this point, MR CRONJE, but you said - well, I couldn't quite understand because my understanding of what you testified earlier on was that you had already agreed with Sanjay the previous night, that they would get $25 000 each, that was agreed, wasn't it?

MR CRONJE: No, it was not agreed, the figure that I mentioned to Sanjay throughout the one day series, when I was spinning him along, was around $25 000. At that stage, there was no agreement.

MS BATOHI: I seem to recall, I haven't been taking notes, that you said that it was agreed between you and Sanjay that they would get, you also said the figure was $25 000 and you conceded that that would have been the amount that would have been agreed upon that night before?

MR CRONJE: We spoke about an amount, I don't know that there was an agreement made.

MS BATOHI: It seems like, if there is any reference to amounts anywhere, if for example you say $140 000 in your discussions with Sanjay, if you said $140 000 or $25 000, I take it you would have meant $140 000 or $25 000?

MR CRONJE: That is correct.

MS BATOHI: So for example if there is a reference to 60, it would mean $60 000?

MR CRONJE: That is what I presume.

MS BATOHI: Just dealing with your relationship with Hamied, looking at your statement it seems to give the indication that Hamied and Sanjay were working pretty much together, would you agree with that?

MR CRONJE: Well, I think it is fair to say that Hamied knew Sanjay because he introduced him to me, yes.

MS BATOHI: Well, that is not what I am asking, they were working together, he knew what was going on between you and Sanjay at all times, is that correct?

MR CRONJE: Other than the time in Durban when we met, we were only speaking on the telephone, so it was a three way telephone conversation, and I don't know what Hamied discussed with Sanjay, but Hamied would often call me and say to me that "Sanjay is trying to get hold of you".

MS BATOHI: Your evidence is that both Hamied and Sanjay were nagging you all the time, what was Hamied's role in this nagging?

MR CRONJE: Well, Hamied were on me all the time, saying that "Sanjay wants to speak to you".

MS BATOHI: In your view, MR CRONJE, did he know what was going on, he must surely have known what was going on between you and Sanjay?

MR CRONJE: I think it is fair to assess that Hamied knew that Sanjay was putting money on and he knew that I was going to try and assist him, yes.

MS BATOHI: And he must have known that Sanjay was paying you for it, as well?

MR CRONJE: That is what I presume, he was in the room when there was money handed over, wasn't he?

MS BATOHI: And besides that, he was the middle-man in this triangle so to speak and he must have known, realised that you were being paid by Sanjay to give him information to do whatever else is necessary?

MR CRONJE: Yes, he introduced me and he often made the call before Sanjay called me, yes, in case Sanjay struggled to get hold of me then Hamied would get through. Often I put a block on my hotel phones and with his Afrikaans, he is able to get through, yes.

MS BATOHI: Just dealing with that, if you spoke on the telephone to Hamied, would you have spoken in Afrikaans to him?

MR CRONJE: Yes, 90% of the time.

MS BATOHI: On that issue of the amount of money that you received from Hamied, your testimony ...

MR CRONJE: Sanjay?

MS BATOHI: I beg your pardon, from Sanjay, your testimony thus far is that you had absolutely no idea how much he had given you, is that correct, up until the time that the money was counted?

MR CRONJE: Up until the time the money was counted, I had no idea.

MS BATOHI: Is it correct that you made your first statement on the 11th of April, before the money had been counted?


MS BATOHI: Do you have a copy, I see you indicate that you've got it in your head. You first put in an amount which you struck off, was scratched out, what was that first amount?

MR CRONJE: That was the amount that I thought it was.

MS BATOHI: What was that?

MR CRONJE: $25 000.

MS BATOHI: And then it appears that the same night, having reconsidered that, you thought it was between $10 000 and $15 000, is that correct?

MR CRONJE: The same morning, yes, after phoning my wife the first time.

MS BATOHI: Well, tell me was this money discussed when you phoned your wife?


MS BATOHI: Tell us about that.

MR CRONJE: My wife did the move down to George for me, as I was in India. She obviously moved the money down from Bloemfontein to George and was under the impression that this was the money that was used for the benefit matches and also from my World Cup, Kenya sustenance allowances from previous trips.

MS BATOHI: My question to you originally was when you wrote the statement out, you had, the money had not been counted and you agreed with me?

MR CRONJE: That is correct.

MS BATOHI: How did you know that there was $10 000 to $15 000 then in that box?

MR CRONJE: It was an estimate from me that it was $25 000 after speaking to my wife, she told me that it was between $8 000 and $10 000, she wasn't sure, she was very nervous.

MS BATOHI: When had she counted the money?

MR CRONJE: About four o'clock on the 11th of April, in the morning.

MS BATOHI: If she told you it was between $8 000 and $10 000, why did you put between $10 000 and $15 000?

MR CRONJE: Because I knew she was confusing the money with my allowances and also with the benefit money.

MS BATOHI: That doesn't quite add up. If she was confusing the money with the benefit money, one would have expected that you would have reduced the amount, just explain that to me?

MR CRONJE: Up until that stage, up until a short while ago, I wasn't honest with my wife. I had actually taken some of the money and put it in different places in the house. She didn't count the full amount, she only had a certain amount that she counted and I knew that there was money hidden somewhere else in the house as well.

When I phoned her later, I told her to get all the money and put it together and take it to Mr Sackstein.

MS BATOHI: Please bear with me, Mr Commissioner.

I am looking at your original letter if we can call it that, so that we can distinguish between your statement and that first letter. The pages aren't numbered, this is on page 3, the third paragraph. You state -

"Hamied phoned me again ..."

Perhaps you should, unless you've got it all in your mind, just so that you can see it in context, you say -

"Hamied phoned me again and urged me to go ahead with the plan. I phoned him up and suggested we go for it."

Now ...(intervention)

MR CRONJE: Hamied phoned me the morning of the Cochin game and said to me that I must phone Sanjay and then I phoned Sanjay.

MS BATOHI: That is not what it says in your statement, it says -

"Hamied phoned you again and urged you to go ahead with the plan..."

which would seem to indicate that Hamied knew what the plan was, is that correct?

MR CRONJE: Hamied phoned me and urged me to phone Sanjay.

MS BATOHI: That is not in your statement MR CRONJE, your letter says - let me finish - your letter says -

"Hamied phoned me again and urged me to go ahead with the plan",

that is somewhat different from what you are saying now?

MR CRONJE: Mr Commissioner, that letter was written at ten past twelve on the morning of the 11th of April, after four days of no sleep, in a day when I knew that my cricket days were over, in a terrible state, and if some of the facts in there, are incorrect, I am terribly sorry. That in my opinion is not a statement, that was merely a letter that I wrote to try and rectify the mistakes of the past.

There is also a number of untruthfulness in there, as I say I never spoke to any players. I don't see how that can be used as a statement that I made. That in fact was a letter that was meant for my wife and my Pastor, Ray McCauley and not necessarily used as a statement. I have never referred to that as a statement.

MS BATOHI: Also in that letter, in the first paragraph 3, first page, paragraph 3, you state -

"It took a few days to realise but the Holy Spirit has guided me to bring out into the open..."

were you at that stage, it appears from that that you wanted to confess, to come clean?

MR CRONJE: At that stage I wanted to come clean, but I also didn't want to implicate the other players.

MS BATOHI: Is there any particular reason why in this letter you only dealt with the Indian tour?

MR CRONJE: I was only accused at that stage of the Indian tour.

MS BATOHI: So your way of coming clean was just to deal with the allegations against you and not tell the whole truth?

MR CRONJE: Ms Batohi, you've got to try and understand that I was in a position where they were probably, the world media, as far as cricket was concerned, was in Durban at the time, the only time that I had was time to myself in the room, to try and explain this. I was trying my best to write a letter under very, very severe stress and tiredness and coming to grips with what I had done. As I said before, Mr Commissioner, I didn't realise how serious the wrong that I was doing was up until I saw the newspapers of the morning of the 8th of April and for three days I didn't sleep very well, in fact I didn't sleep at all, I didn't eat.

That letter or that confession or whatever you want to call it, was done between ten past twelve and two o'clock in the morning when I called Mr Steyn. What is in there is my best possible way of trying to solve a short- term solution, to still keep players in the side to play, to try and keep the matches against Australia to go ahead, to try and as best possible, solve my end to my cricket career, so - and I have already said in my affidavit there is a lot of untruthful statements in there and I apologised for it.

MS BATOHI: You said MR CRONJE, that your object at that time was to keep players in the side to play. Are you still doing that, withholding things from this Commission about certain players that you know about, simply because you still want them to play?

MR CRONJE: At this stage Ms Batohi, Mr Gibbs and Mr Williams have been as far as I am aware, have been suspended, not suspended, have been put on temporary hold by the United Cricket Board of South Africa and that is simply because of my stupidity or walking up to them and asking them on the last day, to get involved in something.

Mr Williams went on the field, giving his hundred percent, Mr Gibbs walked onto the field and the plan never even crossed his mind in my opinion. I thought that when we left India, that those two players had in fact not done anything wrong. That was my honest opinion.

The other players were never involved. The other players were never at any stage involved in anything illegal, they were in fact the strong ones that didn't want to go ahead with the plan, so I am not protecting other players. I am just saying that I am really sorry for what I did to Gibbs and Williams because in fact they didn't do anything wrong.

MS BATOHI: You see MR CRONJE, Mr Gibbs and Mr Williams themselves confessed to what they have done, so you haven't come out and said something about them, and you yourself yesterday said if they hadn't confessed, probabilities are that you would not spill the beans on them so to speak. So it is in that context that I am saying to you in the light of the fact that these players have already confessed before your testimony, you were not putting them into any trouble because they had already confessed, are you trying to protect certain other players because they simply have not come forward?


MS BATOHI: You see MR CRONJE, I am just trying to establish the extent of Mr Hamied's knowledge of what was going on between you and Sanjay and there is just one more thing I want to ask you on that point. If I refer you to page 18, paragraph 56 of your statement, you state in the second sentence -

"He, (that is referring to Sanjay) and Hamied had become increasingly upset by the fact that I had not delivered the required results."

You include Hamied in that becoming upset about the results not being required, now does that mean that Hamied was also getting annoyed that you were not delivering the goods, so to speak?

MR CRONJE: I think Hamied was really getting upset with me that Sanjay was keep harassing him, and I must now do my little bit to keep Sanjay off him as well.

MS BATOHI: MR CRONJE, when this Commission started, there was no statement forthcoming from your side, was there any particular reason for that?

MR DICKERSON: Mr Commissioner, in fairness, I don't think it is appropriate for Ms Batohi, to probe matters which concern privilege and advice that was given.

MS BATOHI: May I respond to that please Mr Commissioner? It is my submission Mr Commissioner that MR CRONJE is here to tell us the truth, the whole truth, to answer questions frankly and honestly.

The question of privilege lies not with his counsel but with MR CRONJE himself and he must decide whether he wants to tell us the whole truth or whether he wants to raise, invoke his privilege in that regard.

MR DICKERSON: Mr Commissioner, that with respect is the most extraordinary statement, legal privilege is inviolate, but to the extent that it is regarded by the prosecution as relevant, I can place on record Mr Commissioner, as indeed we understood to have been communicated to you by Mr Wallace and which I, myself, communicated to Ms Batohi, on more than one occasion, MR CRONJE had been advised that until such time as the question of an indemnity had been addressed, it was appropriate to invoke his constitutional right of which we are all aware and not to furnish a statement. And as is also a matter of record, after the announcement during the weekend preceding Monday the 12th of June, that indemnity had been granted.

The first reaction once confirmation of that had been obtained, was to place before the Commission a draft statement which was proffered on the evening of Sunday the 11th of June and delivered on the morning of Monday the 12th of June, with an invitation that if there were any further aspects which the Commission required to be addressed, they would be addressed.

That I think addresses the question.

MS BATOHI: Well, to a certain extent it does. MR CRONJE, was it your intention to testify last in these proceedings?

MR DICKERSON: Mr Commissioner, again, it was made apparent throughout that the decision regarding the order of witnesses, was a decision which would be taken by the Commission and that too, is a matter of which Ms Batohi is aware and there were indeed communications on that score as well.

MS BATOHI: Well ...

COMMISSIONER: I think we are making a mountain out of the proverbial mole-hill. I don't know, whatever it is you are endeavouring to extract from the witness, Ms Batohi take another route please if you will.

MS BATOHI: Well perhaps I will just put it to him Mr Commissioner. MR CRONJE I am going to put it to you that it was your intention during this Commission to see what comes out basically, either by way of statement or by way of testimony and then come to this Commission and address exactly what has come out and go no further. Can you comment on that?

MR CRONJE: I have come here ...(intervention)

MR DICKERSON: Mr Commissioner again with respect, that is a question which is factually unfair and inappropriate. As Ms Batohi is well aware and the contents of the statement which is before the Commission reveal this to be so. MR CRONJE in his statement has gone far beyond any matters which have been canvassed by any other witness and beyond any matter which to the best of our knowledge was within the ken of the Commission or its investigators.

COMMISSIONER: Mr Dickerson, shouldn't MR CRONJE be giving that answer and not having his counsel answer for him?

MR DICKERSON: I merely, Mr Commissioner, wish to place on record the factual situation which is ignored in the formulation of the question.

COMMISSIONER: Is MR CRONJE unaware of the factual situation?

MR DICKERSON: I was addressing Mr Commissioner, the propriety of the question, I have no doubt that MR CRONJE is aware of the factual situation.

COMMISSIONER: You can repeat the question Ms Batohi.

MS BATOHI: Thank you Mr Commissioner. What I am putting to you MR CRONJE, is that although I agree with your counsel's submission now, that to a certain extent you have gone beyond, for example your dealings with Mr Gupta, you have told us what happened before the 1996 offer, but the terms of reference require you to answer specifically those questions with regard to the 1996 offer.

What I am putting to you is that it was your intention throughout these proceedings to wait and see so- to-speak, and as the evidence emerged, so you tailored your response or your statement to deal with only what has emerged and not with other things that you may well be aware of, can you comment on that?

MR CRONJE: Mr Commissioner, I had a handwritten letter on the 11th of April and I have had one affidavit handed in to you, and as far as I am aware, there is no other statement inbetween.

MS BATOHI: Please bear with me, Mr Commissioner, I won't be much longer.

MR CRONJE, just dealing with that 1996, the 1996 offer, that is in the Gazette, the one that the team discussed and rejected, the last One-day international in India, as far as you are aware, I think I asked you this before, but I want to ask you this again, what did the UCB management know about that 1996 offer, as far as you are concerned?

MR CRONJE: The Management is a wide term. When you talk about management on tour, as far as I am aware, the morning before the day/night game I made a remark or a statement or a comment to Mr Woolmer saying to him that we had a brief meeting where we were offered an amount to throw the game and we had rejected that. As far as I am aware, none of the other management was aware of that, unless they heard or overheard players talk about that.

COMMISSIONER: The tour management you are talking about?

MR CRONJE: Tour management, on the tour was Mr Robbie Muzzell who was the manager, Mr Goolam Raja was assistant-manager and Mr Bob Woolmer was the coach, Paddy Upton was the Exercise Specialist and Craig Smith was the physiotherapist. If my memory serves me correct Dr André Killian was the Doctor, I am not sure whether that is true or not, but that is as far as my memory serves me.

After that I think there was a media report in which either Mr Woolmer or somebody else made reference to that offer, it was often spoken about in the team and joked about and I know of maybe one or two occasions where I had said to Dr Bacher that there was an offer, but we refused it from a very quick point of view, didn't go into detailed discussion.

But that is, as far as I am aware, the only members of management of the United Cricket Board that is aware of that offer.

MS BATOHI: When is it that you mentioned these one or two occasions, when did these one or two occasions occur when you say you mentioned very quickly to Mr Bacher?

MR CRONJE: I specifically mentioned it at the press conference on the 10th of April of this year and I think on one other occasion, to Dr Bacher, it could be anywhere between 1996 and 2000.

MS BATOHI: Your memory thus far has been excellent MR CRONJE, but on this point it is very wide, you are not even prepared to give me a 1997 or perhaps 2000, between 1996 and 2000 is a very long period. Can't you be a little more specific about that?

MR CRONJE: My memory is very good when it comes to cricket and cricket statistics and matches and hotels, I will try and have, not try, I know like my dad, we've got the ability to remember statistics of matches, tennis matches, cricket, rugby, whatever, when it comes to conversations and the names of people, I am not very, very good.

MS BATOHI: Well, just give us some idea, was it closer to when the incident occurred, or was it closer to now?

MR CRONJE: I speak to Dr Bacher probably on three or four occasions in a week, and probably on 200 times a year, I am not sure when it took place, Ms Batohi.

MS BATOHI: I understand that perfectly, MR CRONJE, but I am not going to belabour this point again. Let me put this to you, in view of the fact that there was a media report about it, and I have a copy of that report and it is dated December 1998, there was a media report about it already in 1998 and you said the players spoke openly about it, it was not a secret.

In view of that, would you have expected the UCB management, home management if I can call it that, to have been aware that something had happened?

MR CRONJE: I think the United Cricket Board was under the impression that it was just a brief meeting.

MS BATOHI: So can I gather from that that the United Cricket Board were aware of it, but they believed that it was just a brief meeting?

MR CRONJE: That is my impression, yes.

MS BATOHI: Is there any reason why you have that impression?

MR CRONJE: I am sure if they thought it was a serious offer, then they would have had a meeting about it.

MS BATOHI: So you are saying that your impression is that they were aware of it, but because they thought it was dismissed and not a serious matter, offer, that they didn't have a meeting about it, is that your impression?

MR CRONJE: Up until the day that it became apparent that there was going to be a Commission, I didn't even think that this 1996 offer will emerge at this meeting.

COMMISSIONER: But it was a serious offer, it may not have been seriously treated, but it was a serious offer?

MR CRONJE: I don't think it was communicated to the United Cricket Board in that way, as there was no management in attendance at the meeting and I think the players gave the impression that it was just a quick attempt and "what do you guys think, let's have a meeting, no, we are not going for it, okay, thank you, bye".

COMMISSIONER: Do you think in retrospect that it would have been the appropriate thing to do, to bring it fairly and squarely to the attention of the United Cricket Board, not necessarily by you but by somebody in a position of authority who knew about it?

MR CRONJE: That would have been the correct thing to do.

COMMISSIONER: Don't you think Mr Woolmer would have mentioned it to one of the UCB management?

MR CRONJE: I speak under correction, but I do believe that Mr Woolmer has mentioned it to the United Cricket Board.

MS BATOHI: Do you have any idea of when he would have done that?

MR CRONJE: He normally furnishes a report at the end of the tour, and with his tour report goes a conversation with Dr Bacher.

MS BATOHI: So it is your impression that it would have been shortly after the tour, during some conversation with Mr Bacher that he would have mentioned that?

MR CRONJE: I am not hundred percent sure what they talk about, but if he would have mentioned it to Dr Bacher, it would have been straight away after the tour, if in fact he did it straight away with his report, yes. But it could also have been in a later conversation. I am not always present when Mr Woolmer and Dr Bacher talks.

MS BATOHI: Am I correct then that what you are saying is that it could have happened, immediately after the tour, or it could have happened at some later conversation, you are of the view that Mr Woolmer would have mentioned it to Dr Bacher at some stage, or did in fact mention it, what is the position?

MR CRONJE: I am not sure as I say, I cannot, it will be hearsay, guessing from my side.

MS BATOHI: Would you have expected him to have done that?

MR CRONJE: I don't know at that stage whether Mr Woolmer thought it was a serious offer or not.

COMMISSIONER: Well, he must have thought it was a serious offer, I seem to remember your saying in your statement that he was very angry about it.

MR CRONJE: He was angry in the way that he heard that there was a meeting and he wasn't part of it, I think he made a sort of joking remark to me at the end, "heh, you were going to cut me in", because I was like joking with him about it.

MS BATOHI: I am given to understand that Mr Bacher is a very thorough administrator and that he reads almost anything or everything pertaining to cricket and South African sport in particular, can you comment on that?

MR CRONJE: I have not seen Dr Bacher read a newspaper.

MS BATOHI: Well, I am not asking you whether you saw him read a newspaper, but are you aware of the fact that he keeps abreast of everything that is going on in South African cricket?

MR CRONJE: Well, he is the Managing Director, so I take it that he's got a group of people that will inform him of everything that is going on, yes.

MS BATOHI: So if it appeared in the newspaper, you would have expected that somebody would have informed him about that? Whether they did or not is another matter, but it is something that you would have expected, is that correct?

MR CRONJE: Probably, yes.

MS BATOHI: Mr Commissioner, at this stage, I just need to go through my notes, I don't have anything immediately, perhaps the other counsel can continue and if there is anything further at the end of the day that I need to canvass with him, I could deal with it at a later stage, thank you.


COMMISSIONER: Who is next, Mr Fitzgerald? Mr Manca? Mr Manca.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MANCA: MR CRONJE, you have been cross-examined at length by both Mr Blumberg representing Messrs Cassim and Aronstam and by Ms Batohi, the leader of evidence for the Commission, I want to make it perfectly clear at the outset of my cross-examination, that I don't intend starting at the beginning of your statement, and starting at the beginning of your evidence and rehashing this whole job that has been done. Unfortunately however, I do have to ask you some questions and I will try and do it as quickly as possible, so that we can get through this process.

I know that you have been in the witness box for a long time. Perhaps I could start by dealing with an issue that Ms Batohi raised right at the end, namely Dr Bacher's knowledge or lack of knowledge of the 1996 offer.

Dr Bacher testified, and I know that you weren't here but perhaps you did hear and you probably were told by your legal representatives what his testimony was, it was on television, he testified that insofar as your imparting knowledge of the 1996 offer to him was that he has a recollection that you discussed it with him in casual conversation, for a very short period of time, some weeks before April, that wasn't challenged by your legal representatives then. Do I then take it that you agree with that statement?


MR MANCA: Just staying on this issue for a moment, Ms Batohi has referred to a report in the media which appeared some time after the 1996 offer, she didn't say which report she was referring to and she didn't read the contents of that report to you, and I can only speculate on the report which she was referring to. The only report that I am aware of, and I don't have it with me, because I didn't anticipate this, is a report which appeared in the Sunday Times, I think in about December 1998 and it was an article written by Colin Bryden, do you recall that report? Unfortunately I cannot put it before you because I don't have it with me.

MS BATOHI: I have a copy of that, Mr Commissioner, I have a copy of this article, perhaps I could hand it to my colleague, and I think it might be, I think I would like to hand that in to the Commission and will make copies at a later stage.

MR MANCA: MR CRONJE, this report by Mr Bryden is actually headed "Proud South African Cricketers Hit Match- Fixers For Six" and it seems from the report, I don't know, that Mr Bryden had an interview with you and he chatted to you about match-fixing and related matters and the impression that I get from what you told him in the report was that - and what you said to him was that the issue had been, was raised at a team meeting and "we basically laughed it off". That is what the report says and that would have been the impression that anybody would have gained, had they read that article, it was something that had been raised, had been discussed, but had been rejected out of hand, almost immediately, from the article?

MR CRONJE: That is correct.

MR MANCA: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER: Do you recall the conversation with Dr Bacher that is referred to in the article?

MR CRONJE: I recall having a conversation at some stage, I don't think - was there a conversation?

MR MANCA: There is no conversation with Dr Bacher, referred to in the article, Mr Commissioner, it is an interview that MR CRONJE had with Colin Bryden.

COMMISSIONER: Do you recall that, the interview which you had with Mr Bryden?

MR CRONJE: I had a lot of interviews with Mr Bryden, I am not going to dispute it.

COMMISSIONER: Do you recall an interview at which that particular topic was raised?

MR CRONJE: As I say again Mr Commissioner, I cannot tell you straight away that I can remember the detail of every interview, I am not going to dispute that.

COMMISSIONER: Carry on, Mr Manca.

MR MANCA: You testified I think it was in cross-examination, and I just want to clear this up because you perhaps created the wrong impression at a stage when Ms Batohi was pursuing the question of the alleged transcripts of the telephone calls, she was asking you whether you had ever read these transcripts, do you recall that?

MR CRONJE: She asked me if I was aware of these transcripts through the media and all I said was that the first time that I had seen them, was when Mr Clifford Green and Ms Bronwyn Wilkinson showed them to me in Durban.

MR MANCA: Yes, I just wanted to clarify one aspect of that. In your original evidence you said that Mr Green and Bronwyn Wilkinson shoved it at you and you sort of created the impression that they were being rude or abrasive or abrupt, that wasn't the case. At that time they were trying to be helpful. That was the press conference at Kingsmead, it was on the Sunday, is that correct?

MR CRONJE: Yes, I would like to remind you that English is not my first language and if I created the wrong impression I am terribly sorry, and I would like to apologise to the two individuals.

MR MANCA: I accept that, I didn't think you were being rude and I didn't think that you were deliberately casting any aspersions on them, I just wanted to clear it up.

COMMISSIONER: Can I just on that, and equally I accept that English is not your first language, but it is a pretty good second language if I may say so, but the impression that I got from your description was that you weren't really given a proper opportunity to study the content of that particular statement, it was just shown to you during the course of a discussion. Is that what you were trying to indicate to me?

MR CRONJE: I think what I was trying to indicate to you, Judge, was that when I got to Durban, and it was through my own fault because I had a fifth wedding anniversary the day before, I only got to Durban at about four o'clock and the match that we were playing, a practice match, started at four o'clock, so I rushed straight onto the field, to bat, and retired on 47 and I am glad in my last innings in the South African shirt, I was not out, but I got into the dressing room and had about 25 minutes before the press conference and that was the first time, I think, that I was given the opportunity to look at those transcripts.

I must also admit that it was maybe through my own fault, because I didn't want to fly up to Johannesburg, because I wanted to be with my wife for the fifth wedding anniversary.

MR MANCA: Yes, MR CRONJE, I think we should also just, in fairness to you say that in fact what Bronwyn Wilkinson testified to and what she said in her statement was that she in fact only read you portions of the transcript at that meeting, she read you excerpts, she showed you certain of the things, is that correct? She certainly didn't take you through the entire transcript.

MR CRONJE: Yes, that is correct and at the time, all the transcripts and all the speculation that is out in the media, wasn't in fact available, and I was also under the impression that some of the conversations that I had with the organisers of the benefit matches, could have been edited and copied and taped onto that.

MR MANCA: Alright. If I can - in your statement and also in your evidence when you read your statement you said that you believed that Mukesh Gupta was the bookmaker referred to by Dr Bacher who was in the presidential suite. I listened to you yesterday in cross-examination and I got the impression that that belief was really based on speculation, is that correct?

MR CRONJE: Hundred percent correct, yes.

MR MANCA: I just want to tell you that Mukesh Gupta is not the name of the Mr R that Dr Bacher referred to in his evidence.

MR CRONJE: Maybe if Dr Bacher was in his statement full and complete, then there wouldn't have been that room for speculation.

MR MANCA: Can I take you to India in 1996. You said in your statement and you have referred to him on a number of occasions that a person by the name of Sunil had befriended yourself and a number of other touring party members, is that correct?

MR CRONJE: That is correct, specifically on that tour, it was Paddy Upton, Herschelle Gibbs and the three of us went out to dinner one night. And on the latest tour in particular myself and then during our morning breakfasts at the hotel in, I think the hotel was called the Holiday International in Sharjar, on the top floor, was a restaurant for the players only, but he had a players pass or a VIP pass to the players' restaurant and he was in the restaurant every morning. He not only befriended me, but he also became quite friendly with a number of other players, not only from South Africa, but also with the opposition.

COMMISSIONER: I suppose it would be possible for somebody in that situation or anyone at all for that matter, to strike a deal with one of your players, without your knowing about it, without the captain about it, for instance to found a - or to produce material for the basis of a line-bet, you won't make more than 50 runs or something like that, you would have been unaware of that?

MR CRONJE: That is hundred percent possible, yes.

MR MANCA: You mentioned that Sunil had a VIP pass which would gain him access to the players' bar and the players' bar obviously had access to both ...(intervention)

MR CRONJE: Players' restaurant.

MR MANCA: Sorry, sorry, players' restaurant and that was obviously a restaurant for both yourselves and the Indian players?

MR CRONJE: And the Pakistan players and their wives and the families and The Management.

MR MANCA: Do you know how Sunil managed to get a VIP pass?

MR CRONJE: If my facts are correct I think he is a friend of one of the organisers.

MR MANCA: Alright, can I then just ask you to tell me then who were the other members of the South African touring party then that Sunil befriended, I think you said it was Paddy Upton and he was at that time - who was Paddy Upton?

MR CRONJE: Paddy Upton in 1996 was the Exercise Specialist, Fitness Exercise Specialist, I think his role was.

MR MANCA: And you mentioned also Herschelle Gibbs?

MR CRONJE: That is correct.

MR MANCA: Do you know if Sunil befriended any other members of the South African touring party?

MR CRONJE: Not that I am aware of, no, except that he knew Corrie van Zyl and Corrie van Zyl will be able to tell you about some of the breakfasts that we had that Sunil would come and sit at the table with us.

MR MANCA: So then just to recap, it would have been Paddy Upton, Herschelle Gibbs and Corrie van Zyl? Corrie van Zyl, during that tour would have been an assistant coach?

MR CRONJE: Corrie van Zyl wasn't on the 1996 tour, he was on this tour, he was the assistant coach, I think it is called or more specifically bowling coach.

MR MANCA: Alright. Perhaps I didn't make myself completely clear, my first question was in relation to the 1996 tour, before you answer, I know that it may be difficult to recall immediately which was the 1996 tour and which was the more recent tour in relation to contacts with Sunil, but perhaps if we could just take it stage by stage.

Let's deal with the 1996 tour then. Who did, besides yourself, who did Sunil befriend in the South African touring party?

MR CRONJE: Gibbs, Upton, Cronjé.

MR MANCA: And then in the later tour?

MR CRONJE: You can add van Zyl and you can take away Upton.

MR MANCA: Now you told the Commission that during the 1996 tour Sunil did, at the very least, float this idea of fixing matches. Can you recall whether he floated that idea in the presence of any other touring party members?


COMMISSIONER: You cannot recall or no, he didn't?

MR CRONJE: No, I cannot recall and I wasn't aware that he was doing that in the presence of any other members.

MR MANCA: Could it have been overheard by any other person?

MR CRONJE: No, I think the times that he spoke to me, on the 1996 tour, was in private conversation over dinner and on the 2000 Sharjar trip, it was at the breakfast table where he asked for information about the team selection, who will be playing, who won't be playing, it was in earshot of my wife. I believe that Corrie van Zyl was there with his wife and I think that they would have overheard it, yes.

MR MANCA: Is Sunil this person's first name or his surname or do you know his full name?

MR CRONJE: I know him only as Sunil, so I take it it is his first name.

MR MANCA: Is he an Indian national?

MR CRONJE: I think he lives in Mumbai, yes, so it is fair to assume.

MR MANCA: Has he ever popped up in South Africa on an Indian tour?

MR CRONJE: Not that I am aware of, no.

MR MANCA: Were you surprised to see him in Sharjar?

MR CRONJE: No, he was there in Sharjar in 1996 as well, that is where we first befriended him.

MR MANCA: Still in 1996, you have testified that Mr Azharuddin introduced you to Mukesh Gupta?

MR CRONJE: That is correct.

MR MANCA: If I understood you correctly yesterday, you did admit, did you not, that it is possible that Mr Azharuddin had an idea as to what Mr Gupta was up to?

MR CRONJE: He might have had an idea, he could have had a different conversation with him at some stage, yes sure.

MR MANCA: Now, on your own evidence you are personally aware of betting on cricket matches, that is self-evident, isn't that so?


MR MANCA: And you expressly state in your statement at paragraph 69 of your written statement, that -

"An effort should be made to educate and warn players, particularly before the tours to the sub-continent of the dangers posed by sports betting and gamblers."

Right? Do you see that, that is what you said? Am I correct in then assuming that it is your view, based on your experience, that for want of a better word, sports betting is rife on the sub-continent?

MR CRONJE: I testified yesterday that I don't believe it is legal, so I have been told, but even in the press conference you will get the odd guy walking up to you and say to you "what are your chances tomorrow", or "who do you think will win", that sort of thing. I think it is fair to say that there is a lot of people in the sub-continent that likes to put a bit of money on the game, yes.

MR MANCA: So you would agree that sports betting is rife on the sub-continent?

MR CRONJE: That is my assumption, yes.

MR MANCA: Now, this is a general question and it is, I am asking you this in the context of 1996, we know on your own evidence that before 1996 you had one approach from either a bookmaker or a gambler, John, Mandela Cup, Cape Town, 1995?

MR CRONJE: And he approached me in Johannesburg as well, for the second ...

MR MANCA: You didn't think, did you, that you were the only international player who had been approached by either a bookmaker or a punter or a representative of a betting syndicate?

MR CRONJE: I don't know, I don't think I was the only one, no. If they can get to me, they can get to anyone.

MR MANCA: And you, you don't think that you are the only international player who has accepted approaches from bookmakers, punters, to either provide them with information or fix matches?

MR CRONJE: I know I am not the only one, because I read in the Pakistani report before this Commission, that there were certain of the Pakistani players who accepted that they accepted money and Shane Warne and Mark Waugh also accepted that they accepted money from an Indian to provide information.

MR MANCA: MR CRONJE, what did you think in 1996 when the approach was made to you by Mr Gupta in the hotel room in India, did you think you were the only international player to whom such an approach had been made?


MR MANCA: At that time, did you have an idea as to whom approaches might have been made to?


MR MANCA: Now, you are in, it was the third test in India, is that correct?

MR CRONJE: Correct.

MR MANCA: Were you and the Indian team staying in the same hotel?


MR MANCA: And Mr Azharuddin contacted you and said that he wanted to introduce you to a friend or an acquaintance?

MR CRONJE: That is correct.

MR MANCA: You went to this person, to whom Mr Azharuddin wished to introduce you, you went to his room?

MR CRONJE: That is correct.

MR MANCA: Mr Azharuddin came into the room?

MR CRONJE: For a brief minute, he said "I want to introduce you to this person" and introduced me and left me alone. I suppose that he wanted us to talk about whatever he wanted to talk about.

MR MANCA: Didn't you think it strange that Mr Azharuddin just left you alone with this person?

MR CRONJE: Not really. Often you will get introduced to an autograph hunter or to somebody who wants a quick picture, just leave you to it. Often in South Africa, I will introduce some of the Indian or Pakistani or Australian players to friends of mine and leave them to it.

MR MANCA: You testified yesterday that you have often introduced foreign players to South Africans in various VIP boxes and the like, after a game, and as you put it, over a glass of Coke. I would have thought in those situations, that those would be sociable encounters and that you would in fact remain and take part in the conversation.

I must put it to you that I find it strange that Mr Azharuddin phones you, asks you to go to, tells you he wants to introduce you to somebody and he merely takes you into the hotel room and then he disappears. It doesn't gel and it doesn't seem right to me?

MR CRONJE: That is your opinion.

MR MANCA: What is your opinion?

MR CRONJE: It doesn't seem strange to me at all.

MR MANCA: Tell me, you then say that you had a conversation with Mr Gupta and it related initially to the question of diamonds I think, in South Africa, but then at a point Mr Gupta raised the question of match-fixing. At that time, when you left the room, didn't you think it strange that a person that Mohammad Azharuddin had introduced you to, had just made you, had just handed you $30 000 and asked you to fix a match and I am asking you that in particular with regard to what you thought about Mr Azharuddin introducing you to this individual.

MR CRONJE: He could have been involved with Mr Gupta, but I didn't for any reason think that he was doing business with Mr Gupta at all.

MR MANCA: So you acknowledge that he could have been involved with Mr Gupta?

MR CRONJE: Yes, I won't deny that.

MR MANCA: You would agree with me that in having a look at it now, with hindsight, the probabilities are overwhelming, aren't they, that he was involved with Mr Gupta?

MR CRONJE: Well, if you look at his average against South Africa, it certainly wouldn't suggest that.

MR MANCA: MR CRONJE, I am not going to get into any exercises here in terms whereof we actually look at cricket performances, and let me at the outset just contextualise this a bit. You have testified here about your involvement and at the moment, I am not asking you about your involvement, you have been with respect, quite open and candid about your involvement with Mr Gupta prior to the offer to the team. I am just placing that on record, that you have come and told us about the $30 000, what I am asking you is and with respect, that is one, I think at one stage yesterday you told Judge King that you were a bit reluctant to tell him what blokes talk about, and you used the word "bloke", now I am asking you this question, as one sensible bloke to another, what do you think was Mr Azharuddin's reason for introducing you to Mr Gupta?

MR CRONJE: At the outset of the meeting I thought it was definitely because of a business proposal with diamonds, as the meeting went on, obviously I had my second doubts, or had thoughts about it.

MR MANCA: Yes. I would have expected you to have thoughts about why he introduced you. Now would you tell me what those thoughts were?

MR CRONJE: The thoughts were that if I am the only one that has been approached here, if I, I might not be the only one that has been approached.

MR MANCA: And would you think anything in particular about Mr Azharuddin, given the fact that he was the person who introduced you to Mr Gupta?

MR CRONJE: Yes, well if he is the one that has introduced me, then he can also do business with Mr Gupta, that is all I thought.

COMMISSIONER: Mr Manca, may I enquire of you, what is the purpose of this line of enquiry? What is its relevance to the Commission?

MR MANCA: Mr Commissioner, the purpose of the line of enquiry is to establish the extent to which other people, other than MR CRONJE, may be involved in the matters which the Commission is investigating.

COMMISSIONER: Carry on if you feel it is of value.

MR CRONJE: Mr Commissioner, can I run to the "Gents'" for one second please?

MR MANCA: Mr Commissioner, considering the fact that we started a bit early, perhaps it would be an appropriate time to take the adjournment now.

COMMISSIONER: Very well, Mr Manca, you can run too.



COMMISSIONER: I would ask the photographers to remain in one position and not move around. It is distracting to the witness and to myself and it is also disturbing to the police who are monitoring the proceedings. Thank you very much.

Mr Manca are you ready to continue?

MR MANCA: Yes Mr Commissioner.



MR CRONJE I want to move on to another issue now, and that would be the events relating to India's tour of South Africa and I think that commenced, in fact, in early 1997. Sometimes it has been referred to as 96/97, but whatever the exact date was it was a back-to-back tour. You had been to India and they followed you here, if that's correct

MR CRONJE: Ja I think it's normally the Christmas and the New Year then test match after that. So there are three test matches and a One-day .....

MR MANCA: That's the tour that I am referring to now and in fact I think the evidence that you gave centred around events that happened in January 1997. Would that be correct?

MR CRONJE: I'm not 100% following you. What - ?

MR MANCA: What I'm going to talk to you about is the offers and the money you received from Mukesh Gupta for the first and the second tests of that tour, and I think if I'm not mistaken the monies that were deposited into your bank account were deposited in January 1997.

MR CRONJE: That's correct.

MR MANCA: Nothing really turns on the dates, I'm just putting it in context and telling you that's the time period I'm going to ask you questions about.

You've told the Commission, as I understand it, that Mr Gupta gave you money, you initially said US$50 000, and then you've had a look at your bank statements and there's another amount there of approximately R139 000, and you think that may have also come from Mr Gupta. It's around the same time period and I do understand and I accept that at present your auditors are investigating the source of those two money transfers. I'm just putting it in context, I'm not trying to trick you up about whether it was 50 000 or a little more, I'm just talking about the money in general terms from Mr Gupta. Do you understand me in that regard?


MR MANCA: Do I understand you correctly that you believe that Mr Gupta was a punter? I mean, you didn't think he was a bookmaker, he was a punter, you thought.

MR CRONJE: I have no other reason to believe that he was a bookmaker.

MR MANCA: Yes, and in fact, if I understood your evidence correctly, he told you that the amount of money that he would pay you for the information would depend on his winnings.

MR CRONJE: That's correct.

MR MANCA: Now, as it turned out he gave you a sizeable amount of money. Is that not - that's correct.

MR CRONJE: That is a sizeable amount of money, ja.

MR MANCA: Would it be reasonable to assume that if what he was paying you depended upon his winnings, and he gave you a sizeable amount of money, that he made a large amount of money?

MR CRONJE: That would be a fair assumption, yes.

MR MANCA: Now on your version, you say that that money was only earned as a result of information that you fed him.

MR MANCA: That's correct.

MR MANCA: Now my question to you is this. Why then, when you met Mr Aronstam during the Centurion Park test did you tell Mr Aronstam that the only real way to make money on cricket - and I think you were referring to gambling on cricket, was to have a few players on your side and fix a match?

MR CRONJE: When I spoke to Mr Aronstam I spoke to him in the regards of if I wanted to place a bet on a cricket match, me personally. The only way that I think I can make money is to have a certainty, rather then just a - sort of a guess, an educated guess.

MR MANCA: So you still maintain, do you, that insofar as Mr Gupta is concerned, you only gave him information?

MR CRONJE: That is correct. I think that if you give somebody a definite information, like a definite declaration, then you've got a definite and you can put money on it, ja.

MR MANCA: MR CRONJE, I want to move now on to the Centurion Park declaration, and the final test against India. Now let me at the outset ...(intervention)

MR CRONJE: Sorry, that was England.

MR MANCA: Quite right. Let me at the outset acknowledge that the declaration in that final test, and the forfeiture of innings by both South Africa and England received much acclaim. I mean, you were congratulated from all quarters. I'm just stating that and you agree with that.

MR CRONJE: Thank you.

MR MANCA: But the proposition that I want to put to you is a very simple and straightforward proposition. Do you accept that the decision to declare and forfeit an innings was tainted by the fact that you were promised a reward by Mr Aronstam, and that you in fact received money from him in this regard?

MR CRONJE: It's one that I've thought about for a lot, Mr Manca and Mr Commissioner. I've really gone and thought about it a lot because I walked down the stairs on the way out to warm up, and I spoke to Alec Stewart and I said to him, 'How would the England side feel about forfeit/forfeit, declaring, setting you a target?' And he said to me, 'Well, what are you looking at?', and I said to him that we are looking at about 270-odd, off whatever overs would have been available, that depends on how quickly we get there. So, I don't know 65, 70 overs. And he said to me he's very, very keen but that obviously that decision doesn't rest with him. He will have to go and speak to the English management. So I said to him, 'Well, put it to Nasser. Say to him that I'm reasonably open to that idea.' I mixed it with our coach Graeme Forde, who said to me that instead of having a wasted day that he thought maybe it's not a bad idea, although he wouldn't like to see us lose. I said to him, 'No, I'm not asking us to lose. I'm asking us to make a game of it.'

So anyway, I went onto the field, spoke to Nasser Hussein, who said that he will have to discuss it with Duncan Fletcher. So he discussed it, I then said to Graeme Forde, 'Well, see what you can do. You know it's an opportunity for us to get a win rather then a draw in a test match. Australia have had 6 out of 6 wins, our prize money could be upped if we win. So really, the ball is in their court.' They then said, 'No', and I wasn't fussed. I went back to the dressing room. I phoned Mr Aronstam and said that, 'Listen, they're not keen.' And left it at that.

The England team then, after about 30 or 40 minutes, came back. There was a message that came back from I think Alex Tudor, who was the 12th man of the that test match, and he said to me that the England side have now decided that they would like to negotiate. Negotiations went back and forwards, back and forwards, and eventually we settled on a score.

Now whether in fact my target was influenced by the promise of a gift, I don't - I don't really think so. I think I was out there to try and make a test match of it, and I wanted to go out there and win it. So I wouldn't say that the gift was the sole motivation of the declaration, no.

MR MANCA: MR CRONJE, perhaps you misunderstood me and I will try and make myself a little clearer. I don't suggest for a moment that there weren't good cricketing reasons to declare. Are you with me? I've also suggested to you that at the time, the decision was received massive praise from across the entire cricketing spectrum. All I am suggesting to you is that unfortunately, that decision that you made, no matter how valid and how good it was from a cricketing reason, from a cricketing viewpoint, was unfortunately tainted by the fact that you had had the conversation with Mr Aronstam, he had mentioned money and that after the game you in fact received money from him. Would you agree with that? Do you understand the distinction that I'm making?

MR CRONJE: I understand what you're saying, but he also said to me that, 'Your image as a Captain can improve.' And before I walked onto the field I did not even know what the gift was, Mr Manca. So to me the money wasn't the sole driving power. That was no real drive behind it.

COMMISSIONER: May I just intervene, Mr Manca? MR CRONJE, I must tell you I'm not entirely happy with that answer. It should have been quite obvious to you what Mr Aronstam wanted. Mr Aronstam wanted a result, never mind whether it was a win or a loss from the South African point. He wanted a result because there was probably money already on the match being a draw which was pretty well inevitable, unless something was arranged to forestall it. Now I'm - I haven't heard Mr Aronstam give evidence, but to me that is self-evident. He's a gambling man, he's a betting man, he was working for a spread-betting organisation. There must have been a book on the game, and after three days of rain, or even one or two days of rain, the probability would have been a draw. This was a way of getting a result. Do you agree with me so far on that proposition.


COMMISSIONER: And it's a result which Mr Aronstam presumably thought would have a financial advantage for him or the persons who employed him at the time. Do you agree with that?

MR CRONJE: I wouldn't, no.

COMMISSIONER: You wouldn't know, or you wouldn't, no. What do you mean? You don't know? You -- . Well, what do you think, I mean, just as a matter of elementary logic?

MR CRONJE: I don't know.

COMMISSIONER: Right, Mr Manca, carry on.

MR MANCA: MR CRONJE, I'm just going to put it slightly differently, and with hindsight, it's obviously 20/20 vision, but you shouldn't have taken the money from Mr Aronstam.

MR CRONJE: Correct.

MR MANCA: Just staying on this issue for a moment, and please don't misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting that you were - that your mind at the time was necessarily focused when you spoke to Mr Aronstam on the proposition that I'm putting to you, but I just want you to listen to the proposition and see if you agree with it.

Would you agree that as at the end of the fourth day of the Centurion Park test bookmakers wouldn't have been taking bets on the match because to all intents and purposes the only realistic results that was on the cards for the - on the final day would have been a draw?


MR MANCA: Do you agree that the forfeiture - that the declaration and the forfeiture of the innings by both teams increased the possibility, just increased the possibility that one of the teams could in fact win the game?


MR MANCA: And I make it clear it had nothing to do, it would have not influenced whether either England or South Africa could have won. You agree with the possibility that one of the teams could have won the game then?

MR CRONJE: Correct.

COMMISSIONER: Not could have, would have.


MR MANCA: With respect, Mr Commissioner, no. This was a - still remained a test match. Whatever the outcome would have been on the final day, it was not by any manner of means sure, or a certainty, that either England or South Africa would have won that game. It still could have been a draw, as I think MR CRONJE has himself said, that with 8 balls to go there were four possible results. If MR CRONJE's got a better memory, but if I recall that game, in fact England batted like a steam train at some stage and were cruising for a win, but quite near the end of the game South Africa made a breakthrough and then took a number of wickets and the game was balanced on a knife-edge at the end. So there's no question that in fact there would have been a win, Mr Commissioner.


MR MANCA: Just getting back to my other proposition, once the possibility had now increased that one of the teams could win, it's likely that bookmakers would have opened up their books and that betting on the game would have commenced.

MR CRONJE: The first comment that was passed to me that night at the Centurion Park Press conference was that no bets were taken on the game.

MR MANCA: I must tell you that I haven't investigated that aspect and I don't know whether or not there were - whether bookmakers in fact opened their books. All I'm suggesting to you as a proposition that that could have happened.

MR CRONJE: Yeah, it could have happened.

MR MANCA: Now, just staying with Mr Aronstam for a moment, I understand that you maintained contact with him after the Centurion Park test, and did that contact continue up until some time during the tour of India?

MR CRONJE: Yes. He contacted me on a regular basis, I contacted him on a regular basis up until the end of the second test match. The last conversation that took place between us on the Indian tour was in the bus, on the way from one of the hotels to the airport at Mumbai.

MR MANCA: Now just in regard to that, you said that yesterday, there is some statement floating around here from Mr Aronstam that I haven't been favoured with, but I don't regard that as a disadvantage. I get the impression from what you just told me, and from the statement, that Mr Aronstam went to India.

MR MANCA: I think Mr Aronstam stopped over in India on the way to the Dubai World Cup, as I said yesterday.

MR MANCA: This conversation that you mentioned on a bus, was Mr Aronstam - was that when he was in India, was he on the bus with you, or was it you on the telephone to him?

MR CRONJE: I was on a cellphone, so I'm not aware of his whereabouts at the time.

MR MANCA: Did you meet Mr Aronstam in India whilst he stopped over there at any stage?


MR MANCA: In your last conversation with Mr Aronstam on this bus in India, what did that relate to?

MR CRONJE: Mr Aronstam wanted to know - or I - we sort of spoke about the possibility of maybe doing something in Cochin, and I said to him that there's no possibility there.

MR MANCA: Do you know whether Mr Aronstam has had contact with any of the other current South African players?

MR CRONJE: To the best of my knowledge, no.

MR MANCA: You had met Aronstam during the last test at Centurion Park and you made contact with him as you say right until India. Whilst you were in South Africa did you perhaps introduce Mr Aronstam to any of the other international players who were in South Africa at the time?


MR MANCA: Now I seem to recall and I'm not sure whether it was put to you or whether it came out of your evidence, but something to the effect of that Mr Aronstam had mentioned to you subsequent to the Centurion Park test that there were whispers in the media that something wasn't right about the Centurion Park declaration.

MR CRONJE: Mr Aronstam said to me that speaking to Mike Haysman, that Daryll Cullinan had said something about that, ja.

MR MANCA: You see, if I recall yesterday, I think you said that Mr Cullinan had apparently seen you receive an envelope at the Sandton Sun.

MR CRONJE: That was put to me by my legal team, yes.

MR MANCA: Do you - well, was it put to you that in fact Mr Cullinan had seen you receive an envelope at the Sandton Sun?

MR CRONJE: No. I think that it was a talk by Mr Manthorpe during a Western Province cricket dinner, that he said that Daryll Cullinan's got incriminating evidence against me, that he saw me handing an envelope to - or that somebody had handed me an envelope at the end of the Centurion test match.

MR MANCA: Is that the extent of your knowledge of what Mr Cullinan may or may not have seen? Is that how you acquired that knowledge?


MR MANCA: Right. I want to deal now with your relationship with Mr Hamied Cassim.

In paragraph 44 of your statement, if you can have it in front of you, you can refer to it, it might just be easier. In paragraph 44 of your statement you say that whilst in India you received calls on a, and I quote:

"....regular basis from Hamid and Sanjay."

Do you see that?


MR MANCA: Mr Commissioner, I've just placed in front of you, and you MR CRONJE, I don't know if you've seen this before but I'll take you through it slowly, I'm not trying to ambush you with it. This is an affidavit that came into my possession yesterday. It is apparently signed by Hamied Cassim. Mr Commissioner, if you go to page 7, it is signed on the 6th of June 2000, and it's an affidavit and I only have it in copy form. It's an extraordinary affidavit. In paragraph 14 he reserves his right to change the contents, which is a bit strange. That's apparently a Constitutional right he has.

Now MR CRONJE, if I can proceed. You also state a paragraph 51 of your statement that, and I quote:

"Hamied kept phoning me and saying that I should speak to Sanjay who was now worse off than before. That he needed to win some money and that I would have to deliver something."

That's what you said.

MR CRONJE: That is correct, yes.

MR MANCA: Now, I'm now going to refer you to Mr Cassim's affidavit. Now I'll read it to you. Paragraph 8.24, that's on page 15 of Mr Cassim's affidavit. Mr Cassim says:

"I wish to state further that, save for the discussion at the Beverley Hills hotel in Sanjay's room between himself and MR CRONJE, I had no further meetings or any telephonic discussions with MR CRONJE relating to what had transpired that day at the Beverley Hills hotel."

Do you see that? That's what he says.

MR CRONJE: Yes, I see that.

MR MANCA: Okay. And he goes on to say, at paragraph 8.26 on page 16:

"I did however receive a phone call from Sanjay, asking me if I could contact MR CRONJE to phone him as he was not able to get through to him on his mobile phone. I thereafter contacted Hansie Cronjé and told him that Sanjay was trying to get hold of him and I heard nothing further."

MR CRONJE, Mr Cassim's not being truthful when he says that. He had plenty of contact with you, telephonic and otherwise, isn't that correct? As you have said in your statement.

MR CRONJE: Yes. I think in fairness to Mr Cassim is that the first time that Mr Cassim and I had spoken about betting or gambling was really from the Beverley Hills, was where it started.

MR MANCA: Yes, I'm only - if I can just explain what - you haven't had, and I accept it, a chance necessarily to read Mr Cassim's entire affidavit, but what Mr Cassim seems to suggest is yes, the only time that he started having contact in regard to you with regard to gambling was in fact this meeting at the Beverley Hills hotel when Mr Sanjay was introduced to you. So from that point of view I would agree with you. What Mr Cassim seems to suggest from then on, is he down-plays his role incredibly. It's one phone call, and that's not the case. There were a number of phone calls from Mr Cassim to you during India in relation to the betting arrangements with Sanjay.

MR CRONJE: I spoke with Mr Cassim a lot on the tour and the phone calls necessarily didn't just go about the betting. I would speak to him about tickets, I would speak to him about shirts, I would speak to him about biltong, I would speak to him about other things. So it doesn't necessarily mean that when Mr Cassim calls me we're talking about betting.

MR MANCA: No, MR CRONJE, I don't suggest that for a moment that their entire - that all your telephone calls with Mr Cassim related to betting. I don't suggest that for a moment. What I do suggest is that if you look at your statement, you say that you received calls on a regular basis from Hamied and Sanjay, and that 'Hamied kept phoning me', that indicates that it's more than once, and 'saying that I should speak to Sanjay who was now worse off than before, that he needed to win some money and that I'd have to deliver something.' I'm not taking issue with what you say, MR CRONJE.

What I'm asking you to comment on is when Mr Hamied says that he only phoned you once in relation to the betting arrangements, that's not correct.

MR CRONJE: I think what - if I can explain a little bit, because I do believe ...(intervention)

MR MANCA: Perhaps in fairness to you, I just want you to answer that question yes or no. I'm not sure if you can explain on behalf of Mr Cassim.

COMMISSIONER: Mr Manca, it's a lengthy question, let MR CRONJE answer it as he wishes to.

MR CRONJE: I think my opinion is that Sanjay was putting a lot of pressure on Hamid because I was at times not wanting to field his calls. And I think he was pestering Hamid and Hamid would then call me and say, 'Listen, this man is trying to phone you. Please take the call 'cause he's now whinging in my ear.' I think that's what he's trying to do.

MR MANCA: MR CRONJE, if I could just take you back to paragraph 51 of your statement.

"Hamid kept phoning me and saying that I should speak to Sanjay, who was now worse off then before."

I assume that's a reference to Sanjay. That he needed to win some money, so Hamid said to you in more than one telephone call, that Sanjay is worse off and Sanjay needs to win some money. So Hamid it talking to you directly in relation to the betting arrangements that you have with Sanjay. Is that correct? Alright. And then he says that you would have to deliver something. That's what Hamid said.

MR CRONJE: Yeah, he passed on the message.

MR MANCA: Yes, okay, but that's what he conveyed to you. So when Mr Cassim says at paragraph 11 of his affidavit ...(intervention)

MR BLUMBERG: Mr Commissioner, sorry to interrupt my learned friend. Mr Cassim is going to testify in full about all these particular issues. With due respect, Sir, I believe that it should be left for his questioning.

COMMISSIONER: No, Mr Blumberg. If Mr Manca wishes to question on these lines, he's entitled to do so.

MR MANCA: Mr Cassim says, at paragraph 11 of his affidavit:

"I have further never induced or encouraged MR CRONJE, or for that matter any other cricket player, to do any act which would be either detrimental to the game of cricket, or would bring the game of cricket into disrepute."

Do you see that that's what he says? My simple question is that's clearly incorrect, given what you say at paragraph 51 of your statement. You say 'yes'.


MR MANCA: Thank you. Now yesterday you referred to the triangle between yourself, Sanjay and Mr Cassim. Do you recall that?


MR MANCA: What were you referring to? What was the triangle?

MR CRONJE: The triangle was that Hamid introduced me to Sanjay, and that in India if I couldn't or didn't want to accept any phone calls, I suppose, the operator at times were under instructions not to put any telephone calls through. The only way through to me would be if Hamid said that he's a family member or one of The Management and had to speak in Afrikaans, I think. That's about the only way to get through, I suppose.

MR MANCA: Did Mr Cassim find his way to India on that tour?

MR CRONJE: Not as far as I know, no.

MR MANCA: So you never met him in India?


MR MANCA: Now both you and Mr Cassim have to a lesser - to a greater and a lessor degree indicated that at least one of the things that Mr Cassim was doing was trying to get hold of you when Sanjay couldn't get hold of you.

MR CRONJE: Correct.

MR MANCA: That obviously would not have applied at those times when Sanjay was in India and staying in the same hotel as you were.

MR CRONJE: Correct.

MR MANCA: Did Mr Cassim ever receive monies on your behalf from Mr Sanjay?

MR CRONJE: The only money that I know of is the money that I received in the Beverley Hills hotel.

MR MANCA: Were there ever any arrangements made, irrespective of whether the money changed hands, were there ever any arrangements made in the triangle, that is between yourself, Mr Cassim and Sanjay, that Cassim would receive monies on your behalf from Sanjay?


MR MANCA: Was there ever any suggestion that any other person besides Cassim would receive monies on your behalf from Sanjay?


MR MANCA: If Sanjay was to - had ever suggested to you that he had given monies on your behalf to somebody else, you - surely you would have queried that? You don't follow the question? I'll put it differently. If, during a conversation, Mr Sanjay had suggested to you that monies due to you from him were paid by him to somebody else on your behalf, you would have found that strange, wouldn't you?


MR MANCA: Because there had been no arrangement made in respect thereof.


MR MANCA: Do you know whether Mr Cassim perhaps received any money from Sanjay in order to - as a reward for the introduction to you?


MR MANCA: You don't know that?


MR MANCA: Right. I'm going to move on now to your relationship now with Sanjay. At your - I think it was your initial meeting with Sanjay that he gave you some money in a cellphone box and it was US Dollars. Is that correct?


MR MANCA: Now I think it was two days ago, in quite moving testimony, you emotionally described your love for money and you created the impression that that was a significant contributor to the predicament that you now find yourself in. Would my impression be correct?


MR MANCA: You've also told us of your fastidious habits. And you have ...(intervention)

MR CRONJE: Sorry, what's fastidious?

MR MANCA: Fastidious habits, the manner in which you were quite careful with your money and that you wouldn't be what is called a big spender. You invested your money carefully. You - I'm told from my right that a better English word would perhaps be parsimonious, I'm not sure.

COMMISSIONER: Stingy. (general laughter)

MR MANCA: You've been quite candid in that. You've made no attempts to hide that. In the explanation of how you handled your financial affairs, and you're entitled to handle your financial affairs as you choose. And you've also been quite candid and open that your present predicament is at least in part attributable to greed.

MR CRONJE: Correct.

MR MANCA: My question to you in the light of that, weren't you curious to know how much money Sanjay had given you in the cellphone box?

MR CRONJE: I took it as a rough estimate.

MR MANCA: What did you base this rough estimate - when you say you took it as a rough estimate, perhaps you could take me through that a little slowly.

MR CRONJE: I think the amount that Sanjay and I discussed was around 100 000 if we were to lose a match. He gave this money to me as a deposit in order to, if I have a change of mind, speak to some of the other players. Use it to influence players.

MR MANCA: Why did you think it was a deposit?

MR CRONJE: Because I knew there was going to be a future opportunity.

MR MANCA: If you discussed a possible amount of US$100 000, couldn't it have been possible that there was US$100 000 in the cellphone box?

MR CRONJE: Mr Manca, the only reason why I know that there wasn't was at the time when all the money, all the foreign currency that I had in my possession was handed over to the Reserve Bank, it totalled 47 000. So it could not have been more than whatever was mine before, minus the benefit monies and whatever cash I had in my possession.

MR MANCA: Ms Batohi asked you this morning in relation to the statement that you made on the 11th of April, and I must tell you up front that I accept that you were in a terrible state of emotional turmoil at the time that you wrote that statement, but you did tell her today and I think you might have even told Rory Steyn at the time, that you had initially written $25 000 in that statement. Now at the time you'd written US$25 000 in that statement nobody had yet counted any money. Is that correct?

MR CRONJE: That is correct.

MR MANCA: If - then the question is a simple one. Why did you think that it was US$25 000?

MR CRONJE: Because at that stage I had also spoken to the organisers from the PCM benefit matches, and they'd given me some money and I think I got the two amounts mixed up.

MR MANCA: Alright, I'm just going to go back now to that initial meeting with Sanjay. If I understand you correctly now, what you've said is that in fact at that meeting an amount of money was discussed in regard to what would be the reward for possibly fixing a match. Is that correct?

MR CRONJE: Yes, I think there was a rough estimate, ja.

MR MANCA: And that was US$100 000?

MR CRONJE: To the best of my knowledge, give or take a few, ja.

MR MANCA: I just want to take you back through a few instances and see if I'm correct. The first time that you received money was from Mr Gupta in 1996, that was US$30 000, that it was a request by him to you to throw a game, but you thought that was money for jam because - it has appeared now, I mean, the state of the game was such that it would have really taken a miracle for South Africa to achieve a draw let alone a win. Is that correct?

MR CRONJE: That is correct.

MR MANCA: And in your mind at that time you weren't seriously considering throwing the game.


MR MANCA: The next time that there was an offer - I'm not going to say 'the next time' because I think there were - there have, and you have testified and I don't dispute that, that you have received approaches from John and Mr Gupta, which you have rejected. That is correct, isn't it?


MR MANCA: But very shortly after you received the $30 000 from Mr Gupta in India in 1996, he approached you with the offer of 200 000, and it wasn't rejected out of hand. It formed the subject matter of the much debated and much talked about team meeting.

MR CRONJE: Correct.

MR MANCA: And at the end of the day, the offer wasn't accepted.

MR CRONJE: Correct.

MR MANCA: The money that you received from Mr Gupta in 1997 was not in relation to match-fixing or influencing the performance of any players. That was in relation to information and, as you point out, particularly the information in regard to the stage at which the declaration would be made. Is that correct?

MR CRONJE: Correct.

MR MANCA: And similarly, the approach that you had received from Mr Aronstam in regard to the final day of the Centurion Park test, it had nothing to do with actually affecting whether South Africa would win or lose. It wasn't based on throwing a game in any way whatsoever, is that correct?

MR CRONJE: That is correct.

MR MANCA: But now Mr Chawla, Sanjay, makes you a direct offer in respect of, pertinently, match-fixing. I mean, that's really what he was interested in. Is that correct?

MR CRONJE: Yes, that's correct. I tried to explain it earlier, the last two or three days, that what Mr Chawla, or Sanjay, wanted was if for argument's sake we had qualified for a final and there's an opportunity to play a lessor side or a less stronger side, that's when he wants to get the information so it increases the odds of him winning. In other words, we play a less stronger side, or I can manipulate us losing that match.

MR MANCA: I understand that and I also understand that in fact - if I could - if I understand you correctly, I mean, you didn't unconditionally accept that offer. You had some difficulties with it. You initially, in fact, told him that you wouldn't consider it, and they pressed you and I think you eventually settled on, 'Well, if you can guarantee me a place in the final, I'll think about it.' That's what you said, is that correct?

MR CRONJE: That is correct.

MR MANCA: Now up until now, and I'm not criticising you because I think you have been through a large amount of stress, this morning was the first time that I heard the Mr Sanjay had mentioned an amount of $100 000 at that meeting.

MR CRONJE: That was discussed. It wasn't a definite. I mean, I've discussed a lot of money with a lot of people, and it wasn't a definite discussion.

MR MANCA: No. I mean that that wasn't in your statement previously.

MR CRONJE: It wasn't in my statement and I haven't mentioned it. Today was the first time.

MR MANCA: Yes. Is there any particular reason why you didn't mention that previously?


MR MANCA: You see, what I was going to pursue with you was that what he was asking you to do was quite a drastic thing. You will agree with me in that regard?

MR CRONJE: Drastic in the sense of losing a game, yes, but ...(intervention)


MR CRONJE: Drastic in a sense of losing a game. The only way I could rationalize it was that once we qualified for the final subsequent game, it wouldn't have been that hard to lose.

MR MANCA: I'd previously thought that, apart from the other reasons that I'd mentioned, you would have been curious to know how much money there had been in the cellphone box, because that may have influenced your decision as to whether you were going to take him up on his offer. But I mean, that doesn't really apply any more, because you had in fact discussed the amount that he was going to offer you, or going to pay you if you agreed with his proposal.

MR CRONJE: As I say to you, that the money that he gave me was really just in case I had a change of mind, in case I wanted to use it to get other players on side.

MR MANCA: Was that proposal made by Sanjay directed in respect of the triangular series between South Africa, England and Zimbabwe?

MR CRONJE: Ja, he was quite keen to get involved in that first match of - or not the first match, the second match against Zimbabwe in Durban.

MR MANCA: We - sorry, when I say 'we', I shouldn't say 'we', South Africa won that tournament.

MR CRONJE: South Africa won it easily, ja, as Mr Greene has pointed out to you.

MR MANCA: He was a bit unsure. (laughs)

MR CRONJE: He was unsure for five years about my financial affairs, ja.

COMMISSIONER: You didn't do too badly under his tutelage.

MR MANCA: What games did South Africa lose in that series?

MR CRONJE: We lost a match in Bloemfontein and we lost the one in Durban.

MR MANCA: It's a straight question. Were you rewarded by Mr Sanjay in respect thereof?


MR MANCA: Now moving on to India. If I understand you correctly, what you say is, and I can understand it in relation to your previous experiences, particularly the one in India in 1996, where you were given $30 000 for what, as you termed, was money for jam. Your stated intention with regard to Sanjay in India was to string him along. He wanted you to fix a game, is that correct?

MR CRONJE: He wanted a certainty to put money on, ja.

MR MANCA: Yes, and as you have said, the only way you can really be certain is to participate in a game and have some other team members in on the plan. Correct?

MR CRONJE: Unless of course you give him information on a declaration, or something like that.

MR MANCA: That would be a different issue, but we're talking about actually losing a game.


MR MANCA: So your intention was to tell him that in fact you were going to lose games. And you were also going to tell him that you had players on your side, whereas in truth and in fact, you had no such intention either way. Is that correct?

MR CRONJE: I told him I had players on my side, and the intention initially was never to involve other players. I tried faint attempts at Strydom, Klusener, Kallis and Boucher and as I said, their rebuffs were quite immediate, and then unfortunately I pushed it too far with Gibbs and Williams.

MR MANCA: Yes, my question to you is simply this. You testified yesterday in relation to the approach that you had made to Mark Boucher, Jaques Kallis and Lance Klusener before the second test match in India, was that the reason you approached them was that Sanjay had asked you to get other players involved. Do you recall that evidence?

MR CRONJE: Ja. I told Sanjay that I had spoken to Strydom and Gibbs and Bojé, and that they were pretty much on side, but that he said that you need more players on your side to have a definite.

MR MANCA: When you told Sanjay that you had spoken to Gibbs, Strydom and Bojé, this was now before the One-day matches. This was whilst the test series was on. As I understand your version, you had in fact not spoken to Gibbs or Bojé, but you had spoken to Strydom. Is that correct?

MR CRONJE: That's correct.

MR MANCA: But you had told Sanjay that Gibbs, Strydom, Bojé were involved?

MR CRONJE: Ja, I told him that I could get them, ja.

MR MANCA: What I don't understand is this. If you had no intention of speaking to players, and if your intention was only to string Sanjay along, why did you bother speaking to Klusener, Kallis and Boucher? Surely you could have just mentioned their names to Sanjay. He wouldn't have known if you had spoken to them or not.

MR CRONJE: That is exactly my point as well, is that I had this man on me all the time, I had him nagging all the time, and I didn't want to involve the other players. And pushed by Sanjay, I mentioned it to the other players and I said to them that, 'There's this man nagging at me, what do you guys think?', and they just told me no straight away.

MR MANCA: Are you quite sure that during that timeframe and prior to raising the issue in the manner as you did with Mr Boucher, Mr Klusener and Mr Kallis, that you hadn't also raised the issue with Mr Gibbs and Mr Bojé?

MR CRONJE: 100% sure.

MR MANCA: You had raised the issue with Mr Strydom.

MR CRONJE: Correct.

MR MANCA: Do you have any explanation as to why - I mean, we know that you made an approach to Mr Strydom. Do you have an explanation as to why, of all the players in the team, you chose to tell Sanjay that you had Gibbs, Bojé and Strydom involved?

MR CRONJE: There's no reasonable explanation for that.

MR MANCA: Mr Commissioner, just give me a moment. You had arranged, it's not in dispute, that some time in April of this year, I think you were going to take some South African players on a tour of India, to play in I think what you termed were benefit matches. Is that correct?

MR CRONJE: That is correct.

MR MANCA: In your evidence yesterday, I think you sort of - you elaborated a little bit more on these matches and I understood them to be sort of - rather to be some kind of innovative kind of cricket, if I wasn't mistaken. Can you just explain that?

MR CRONJE: The organisers wanted us to play a new form of cricket, somewhere between One-day cricket and cricket Max, which is being played in New Zealand. The format would have been 40 over matches, 5 ball overs, but that you would bowl two overs from one side before a change-over in order to speed up the action. The matches itself would only last three-and-a-half hours, so it's more from an entertainment point of view.

MR MANCA: You mentioned yesterday, also the sponsors, if I - you mentioned Sony Max, if I think. Was that correct?

MR CRONJE: That is correct.

MR MANCA: And who is Sony Max, is that a television company?

MR CRONJE: That's correct.

MR MANCA: I mean, I know Sony television and they're the makers of television. They're not a broadcaster in the East. I'm just ignorant about that, I just need to know.

MR CRONJE: Sony Max is a new channel in India.

MR MANCA: So it is in fact a television channel that was going to broadcast the games?

MR CRONJE: That's correct.

MR MANCA: Presumably, this was going to be quite a big affair.

MR CRONJE: I would think so, ja.

MR MANCA: In those circumstances, wouldn't you have thought that the sponsors, or rather the organisers, Sony Max, would have been in touch with you in regard to the arrangements for payment of the players and travel, and the like?

MR CRONJE: The organisers of the tournament wasn't Sony Max. They were the broadcasters. The organisers were PCM International.

MR MANCA: And PCM International, a representative of PCM International, which seems to be - is it an Botswanan company?

MR CRONJE: I think the company has a branch in Botswana, but it's mainly based in India, I think.

MR MANCA: Yes, a representative visited you in Bloemfontein on the 15th of February. Is that correct?

MR CRONJE: That is correct.

MR MANCA: And he gave you US$25 000 in cash?

MR CRONJE: That's correct.

MR MANCA: Didn't you think that was a somewhat surprising manner in which the financial arrangements of the tour were going to be organised?

MR CRONJE: It's probably not the appropriate way, but I didn't think it was the wrong way.

MR MANCA: You've already testified that you were aware that that money hadn't gone through proper exchange control regulations. I mean, didn't you think it was a bit risky or unwise for you to be doing that?

MR CRONJE: The reason why it was done that way was that I should pay the players an individual sum of money, as their appearance money and their prize money and meal allowances for the tours. So I needed to have cash on me as in any other tournament, any other tour of South Africa, the players need to have subsistence allowance and also prize money and appearance money.

MR MANCA: Now you've mentioned that - you've explained to the Commission how the US$47 000 was arrived at, which was subsequently handed over by your attorneys to the Reserve Bank, and if I understand you correctly, it comprised of US$25 000 which you'd received from the promoters of the tournament to be held in India, and that it was - and then there was $10 000, being the money that you had received from Sanjay, and that the balance, you say, represented prize money or subsistence allowances or the like, which you had accumulated over time. In fact, in your statement, amongst other things, you refer to the World Cup in particular. Do you recall that?

MR CRONJE: That's correct.

MR MANCA: Now, just tell me if I'm correct, I understand from Mr Raja, Mr Goolam Raja who was the South African Team Manager in the World Cup, that these were the following arrangements, certainly in relation to prize money. Now I didn't - could have also been the arrangement in relation to the subsistence allowance, but I may be a little wrong. He opened a bank account of behalf of the team on arrival in England. Is that correct?

MR CRONJE: Yeah, that's correct.

MR MANCA: And that whenever the team would win money in the tournament, be it either by way of the Man of the Match awards, or actual money which was won by the team in respect of a game that they had won, he would be the actual person who would have collected a cheque from the tournament organisers on behalf of the team. Is that correct?

MR CRONJE: That's correct.

MR MANCA: And that he would then have deposited that cheque into the bank account which he had opened on behalf of the team.

MR CRONJE: That's correct.

MR MANCA: And the cheques which were payable in the World Cup were payable in pounds sterling.

MR CRONJE: That's correct.

MR MANCA: And at the end of the World Cup, what he did was he went and got a cashiers cheque. He essentially closed the account, drew out the money in cash, in pounds sterling, and then divided it amongst the players in accordance with the players agreed upon formula. Is that correct?

MR CRONJE: Yes, that's correct.

MR MANCA: So the World Cup money would have been received in pounds sterling. Just moving on then to India. I understand from Mr Raja that there's not much money by way of prize money in India. Is that correct?

MR CRONJE: Yeah, that could well be, ja.

MR MANCA: And that on that tour, as in other tours, he would again be the custodian of the money in the sense that the subsistence allowance, which would be paid by the Indian Cricket Board to the team would essentially be paid to him. He would be the person in charge. Is that correct?

MR CRONJE: That's correct.

MR MANCA: And in India that subsistence allowance would have been paid in rupees.

MR CRONJE: I stand to be corrected, but I think it was in dollars.

MR MANCA: His recollection is rupees, perhaps we'll take that up with him, but you don't have any difficulty with regard to the modus operandi, how it happened?

MR CRONJE: I'm not unhappy about that.

MR MANCA: I think in your statement you also mentioned that in your - the money that was in your home also perhaps included money from the Kenya tour. Is that correct?

MR CRONJE: That's correct.

MR MANCA: I assume once again, that a similar arrangement would have been made with regard to the actual mechanics of the distribution of the money.

MR CRONJE: That's correct.

MR MANCA: What currency was the Kenya tour paid in?

MR CRONJE: If I'm correct, it's US Dollars.

MR MANCA: What did you do with the pound sterling that you received - no, let me ask you. I don't want to know what you did with it, let me ask you a different question. Did you convert the pound sterling that you received in England into US Dollars?

MR CRONJE: I can't really remember, Mr Manca. We go through a lot of tours and we have a lot of foreign currency with us. Which is dollars, which is sterling, I wouldn't know.

MR MANCA: MR CRONJE, I'm going to wrap up now. Do you or do you not accept that by conveying the offer which you received from Mr Gupta prior to the final One-day international in Mumbai in 1996, you were at the very least a party to an attempt to fix a match?

MR CRONJE: That's correct.

MR MANCA: Do you also accept that you were party to a similar attempt at the game in Nagpur in March of this year?

MR CRONJE: That's correct.

MR MANCA: And then finally, do you also accept that your conduct in relation to Mr Gibbs and Mr Williams prior to the game at Nagpur constituted an attempt by you to induce or encourage Mr Gibbs and Mr Williams not to perform on their merits as a result of a betting arrangement?

MR CRONJE: It was the worst thing that I could do.

MR MANCA: Thank you, MR CRONJE. I have no further questions.


COMMISSIONER: Mr Fitzgerald.

MR FITZGERALD: Mr Commissioner, in the light of the evidence which MR CRONJE has given in regard to those players for whom we act, we see no need to cross-examine him.


COMMISSIONER: Ms Batohi, you indicated you might wish to ask some further questions. Do you wish to do so?

MS BATOHI: Just one or two questions I'd like to put.


RE-EXAMINATION BY MS BATOHI: Just dealing with the benefit matches MR CRONJE, which Mr Manca has just dealt with, that were going to be played in India today, I beg your pardon, earlier this year. The $25 000 that you received, I note that attached to your statement there is a letter from PCM International, dated 25th of May 2000, which confirms the fact that that amount of $25 000 was paid to you.

MR CRONJE: That's correct.

MS BATOHI: Now it's obvious from the date on that, that that letter was obtained for the purposes of this Commission to explain the US$25 000. Is that correct?

MR CRONJE: That's correct.

MS BATOHI: Was there no document prior to that, no voucher, receipt, that would have confirmed the receipt of this money at the time that you received it?

MR CRONJE: Not that I'm aware of, no.

MS BATOHI: Why wasn't that the case?

MR CRONJE: It was done on goodwill, good faith. I trusted the organisers.

MS BATOHI: There's already been much talk about the fact that there's too much of One-day international cricket being played. I just want you to give me your comments on why you were prepared to get involved in this benefit tour to India, when I already get the - well, it appears from having spoken to some of the players and the testimony of some of them, that's it's very difficult touring India. Why were you prepared to get involved in this benefit? Was it very financially viable? Is that the reason?

MR CRONJE: It was only a 10 day tour, and it was very financially viable for me personally, and the players would have made some good money as well.

MS BATOHI: Do you anticipate that there would have been a lot of betting on these games as well?

MR CRONJE: I don't know.

MS BATOHI: There's been a lot of questions - well, recently there've been questions asked about one of the matches at Sharjah, and that is the penultimate match between South Africa and Pakistan where there was really nothing in that result, nothing depended on it. South Africa and Pakistan were already through to the final. Your testimony has been that you've had no approaches during Sharjah. But I'd like you to just think again about that Sharjah tournament. As far as your evidence is concerned, you would be prepared to throw matches if nothing depended on it. Thus far, that is what you've testified, isn't that so? You nod your head, I suppose that means, 'yes'. It's just that this doesn't record it.

Weren't there any approaches with regard to that? I just find it odd that nobody approached you with regard to that match.

MR CRONJE: Ms Batohi, I think it's fair to say that the reason why South Africa lost that match is because I wasn't playing.(general laughter)

COMMISSIONER: You mean you fixed it, MR CRONJE.(general laughter)

MR CRONJE: And I will do anything to get back in .....(laughing)

Ms Batohi, the morning at breakfast Sunil asked me and that was in the presence of Mr Corrie van Zyl and my wife and Corrie van Zyl's wife, whether I was playing in that match or not. And I said to him no, I wasn't playing, that Shaun Pollock was captaining and I was very upset about it, because it brought my run to an end of consecutive matches for South Africa. And he said that he thinks he's going to put some money on Pakistan winning that game. I don't think a lot. I think he's a small time punter.

In any case, I think he put some money on, and the following morning at breakfast he came to me and he said, 'You know what? I was stupid when South Africa were 72 for 1 I took my money and took it off Pakistan and put it on South Africa, and then South Africa lost I think 7 wickets for about 20 runs', and that's all I know about that match from a gambling point of view.

MS BATOHI: After the storm broke, so to speak, on the 11th of April, is it - you've testified already that you had a lot of contact with Mr Aronstam telephonically. Did you also arrange to meet him in Bloemfontein at one stage to discuss getting "your ducks in a row", so to speak, for the Commission.

MR CRONJE: Ja, I was very naughty, I must admit. I got a huge fright when this whole thing broke, and I wanted to cover up as much as I can, as Mr Gibbs and Mr Williams testified, and I wanted to make an arrangement with Mr Aronstam to cover up as well, yes.

MS BATOHI: Is it possible that your wife hasn't quite discovered all the money that you've hidden around the house, and maybe another search might come up with some more dollars lying around?

MR CRONJE: I think if my wife discovers one more dollar lying in the house she'll cut the other testicle out as well. I tell you that. (general laughter)

MS BATOHI: Just one last question, MR CRONJE. What do you intend doing with the illegitimate money that you've obtained thus far?

MR CRONJE: At this stage I have not discussed it with my legal people. I have put the question to them and I had certain proposals, but they said that if I put those proposals now it will just try and look as though I'm trying to put a positive thought in the Commissioner's mind and other peoples' minds, so I'm going to wait until the end result of this Commission and then we'll make a decision. But I hope that I can use that money in some way to repay and redress the hurt that I've caused the game and my country in particular, and also the Minister.

MS BATOHI: Well, what are these positive thoughts that you had? Just as a matter of interest.

MR CRONJE: I don't know yet. I haven't really final discussions as to what - with my legal people as to what we want to do.

MS BATOHI: I have nothing further, Mr Commissioner.


COMMISSIONER: Don't forget impoverished Commissioners when you make up your mind, MR CRONJE. Mr Dickerson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DICKERSON: Thank you, Mr Commissioner. MR CRONJE, I know it's been a long and tiring period. You were asked at some length today about the involvement of Mr Azhuraddin in your introduction to Mr Gupta. And you were asked by the UCB representatives to speculate on what Mr Azhuraddin did nor didn't know about your dealings with Mr Gupta and what would happen. As you sit here today, are you able to say what Mr Azhuraddin did or didn't know about the offers that were made to you by Mr Gupta?

MR CRONJE: No, he's not aware of it.

MR DICKERSON: I have no further questions.


MS BATOHI ADDRESSES: Mr Commissioner, I'm not sure if you wish to add anything further, but if - before MR CRONJE is excused, I just wish to place something on record, the fact that this is an ongoing investigation and efforts are still going to be made to get the tapes from India, I think they're crucial in this inquiry. And like with all other witness - there are also investigations that are continuing into MR CRONJE's financial affairs, we've only just received the documents, we're still awaiting a lot of source documents, as with the other witnesses that have already testified, there's always a possibility of being called back to explain certain things.


MR DICKERSON: Mr Commissioner, may we ask on that basis that MR CRONJE now be provisionally excused, so that he may go home?




Related Links:

Cricinfo's Coverage of Match-Fixing Allegations