HELD ON: 13-06-2000


MR FITZGERALD: Mr Commissioner, the next witness will be David John Richardson.

COMMISSIONER: Mr Richardson, are you prepared to take the oath?



EXAMINATION BY MR FITZGERALD: Mr Richardson, do you have a copy of your statement before you?


MR FITZGERALD: You confirm that contents of that statement?

MR RICHARDSON: I confirm them.

MR FITZGERALD: Will you hand it up to the Commissioner?

COMMISSIONER: I take it you don't need a good attorney to assist you.

MR RICHARDSON: It's debatable.

COMMISSIONER: I beg your pardon.

MR FITZGERALD: Thank you. As indicated by the Commissioner, you are in fact an attorney of the High Court of South Africa.

MR RICHARDSON: That's correct.

MR FITZGERALD: You were formerly a partner of the firm Pagdens in Port Elizabeth?


MR FITZGERALD: And you hold the degrees of Bachelor of Commerce and Bachelor of Law.

MR RICHARDSON: That's right.

MR FITZGERALD: You are no longer a member of any South African cricket side. You retired in February 1998.

MR RICHARDSON: That's right.

MR FITZGERALD: By whom are you currently employed?

MR RICHARDSON: I'm currently employed by a sports marketing company, ESPN Legends.

MR FITZGERALD: And is it correct that you're also the Commercial Representative of the South African Cricket team?

MR RICHARDSON: That's correct.

MR FITZGERALD: And that involves you in team sponsorships, official supply agencies, merchandising and the like.

MR RICHARDSON: That's correct. Looking after their interests in all their commercial matters.

MR FITZGERALD: And more particularly, you represent Herschelle Gibbs, Mark Boucher, Roger Telemachus and Makhaya Ntini in their personal capacities as well.

MR RICHARDSON: That's correct.

MR FITZGERALD: Mr Manca was apparently also educated a Marist Brothers, so he's asked me to confirm that you were in fact educated at Marist Brothers, Port Elizabeth and at the University of Port Elizabeth.

MR RICHARDSON: That's correct.

MR FITZGERALD: Your test debut for South Africa was in the 1991/1992 season against the West Indies at Bridgetown.

MR RICHARDSON: That's correct.

MR FITZGERALD: And your first one-day international was against India at Calcutta, in the same season.

MR RICHARDSON: That's correct.

MR FITZGERALD: You retired, as you said, at the end of the Australian tour in the 1997/1998 season.

MR RICHARDSON: That's right.

MR FITZGERALD: Your batting average in tests was 24.26. Why was your average in one-day internationals only 19.72?

MR RICHARDSON: Mostly because people like Kallis and them batted for the majority of the overs very slowly (general laughter) and then the Captain used to normally say, 'You know, go out there 20 and over. Don't take any chances.' (more general laughter)

MR FITZGERALD: A correction, just for the record, you were a wicket-keeper, and you are a right-hand batsman.

MR RICHARDSON: That's correct.

COMMISSIONER: You can add to your two Bachelors degrees, Mr Richardson, the Degree of Master of Wicket-keeping.


MR FITZGERALD: And you've represented South Africa obviously throughout the world, at World Cups, et cetera.

MR RICHARDSON: Yes, I only went to the one World Cup. I was injured in the '96 one.

MR FITZGERALD: Now, were you a member of the South African team that toured India in 1996?


MR FITZGERALD: Was any offer of money made to the team, that you were aware of, to throw any game?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes, there was, and it related to the very last match of the tour, a one-day match, which was made an international. And it was for the benefit of one of the ex, or former Indian players.

MR FITZGERALD: Was it a game that the South African team was particularly enthusiastic about?

MR RICHARDSON: No, not really. Prior to it, we obviously knew that it was coming up, and there was a lot of negotiation, or there was a strong feeling in the team to get Dr Bacher to - not necessarily cancel the game, but certainly to make sure that it wasn't regarded as an official one-day international.

MR FITZGERALD: It was ultimately, though?

MR RICHARDSON: It was. Again, nothing to do with the players agreeing to it. It was just said, 'Unfortunately, we can't do anything about it. It has to be an official one-day international.'

MR FITZGERALD: Now can you describe to the Commission your recollection of the offer and what took place in that regard?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes. As I said in my statement, it's quite difficult to remember exactly what I recall, and obviously since this whole news broke we've discussed it amongst ourselves, whether it's been in the commentary box, or wherever, so it's sometimes difficult to differentiate between what I remember and what people have subsequently told me.

But I think if I can best described it - I think the way it arose was prior to the match, and certainly after the previous final, Hansie mentioned to a few of the senior players that he'd received an offer for us to influence the result of the game, because I can't remember whether it was meant to be we were meant to lose, or whether we were meant to lose by a certain number of runs, or whether they were meant to get to a certain number of runs, and I also can't remember the actual figure that was mentioned. I do remember thinking though, immediately, that if you divide it by 15, it's not going to be that much money.

The reaction of the players that he spoke to first was, 'we've got to have a team meeting'. Now I can't say that I - it was a meeting convened of senior players for that purpose. All I know is that it eventuated in a team meeting, and we all sat in, I think it was Hansie Cronje's room, and again, Hansie just put the offer to the team. I don't recall it ever going to any kind of vote. I presume that a couple of the guys just spoke about it, and gave their views. There might have been some guys who said, 'Ja, we must go for it, we're going to lose anyway', but I do recall Andrew Hudson saying that he wouldn't want any part in it.

I can also recall me saying something about that, 'I would probably love to take the money than all of you, but it's just not something that we can do', and that was said really after I had heard everyone talking about it and giving their penny's worth, and it was really almost summing up the meeting, and almost taking the responsibility of giving advice to what I thought the team should do. And that I was an attorney and if I, for instance, got caught or it came out, it would jeopardise my practice, and it was summarised as something that we just mustn't get involved in, no matter how much or how tempting the offer might be.

MR FITZGERALD: And that ultimately was the unanimous decision of the team?

MR RICHARDSON: Everyone accepted it. It wasn't a question of someone getting upset or anything. It was unanimously accepted.

MR FITZGERALD: After the team meeting, was that the end of your involvement, or - ?

MR RICHARDSON: To be honest, only until recently when it has been put to me by various things, and I read about Pat Symcox's testimony, I do vaguely kind of recall one or two of us sitting behind, and discussing the offer. The testimony that I have heard, that a phone call was then made to increase the offer, I honestly can't recall that, but I can say with safety that the result was the same. That we just can't get involved.

MR FITZGERALD: With the benefit of hindsight, do you think it was a good approach to have the team discuss the offer?

MR RICHARDSON: Well, I think in hindsight, knowing what we knew then, it was kind of the only way that it could have happened. But certainly with hindsight, and knowing what we do today and the seriousness of the matter world-wide, and the implications that arise from something like this and the seriousness, really, of the matter, there's no doubt that it shouldn't really have even got, I don't think, as a Senior player you should have suggest to the Captain that he take it to a team meeting. Definitely not.

MR FITZGERALD: Did you play in that game?

MR RICHARDSON: No. Unfortunately, I had just - sort of the last few days of the tour, I picked up a virus and had a temperature and wasn't going to play. I was certainly hoping that I'd recover each day, but in the end wasn't fit enough to play.

MR FITZGERALD: There's been reference in this Commission to Hamied Cassim. Have you ever met anybody by that name? Do you know Cassim at all?

MR RICHARDSON: Not to my knowledge. Certainly you meet thousands of people in foyers of hotels and that, and if I did meet him it was inadvertently. I wouldn't know him if he walked in, or if someone said to me, 'That's him', I wouldn't know him.

MR FITZGERALD: Just thinking back, I don't want you to speculate, but can you recall any decisions ever made by Hansie Cronje which at the time, or even now, you thought suspicious or could in any way be related to match fixing?


MR FITZGERALD: Your relationship with Hansie Cronje, how would you describe that?

MR RICHARDSON: I think it was very much, certainly while I was playing, as one of senior player to a Captain. And he used me regularly to bounce off theories or tactics, asked me my idea of where we should be bowling to various players, just fulfilling the role, really, as a senior player and the wicket-keeper in the side. I had the impression, or I still do, that he certainly respected my views as regards theories and tactics, and generally in life, you know. I mean, the fact that they called me 'Uncle' was not something which I enjoyed, but it was that type of relationship which I had with the team, including Hansie.

MR FITZGERALD: Have you ever bet on a game of cricket?


MR FITZGERALD: Are you aware of any other players that have done so, South African players?

MR RICHARDSON: Well, it's turning out now, but no, I was never aware certainly as a player.

MR FITZGERALD: Mr Richardson, you're an experience ex-player. Given your experiences, do you have any views or recommendations as to what could be done to stamp out the problem of corruption and match-fixing in cricket?

MR RICHARDSON: Well, as their Commercial Agent, I suppose I must say that it would be a good idea to pay them a little bit more, but I think that the game is suffering from the fact that too much cricket is being played, and too many meaningless series have been played around the world, which results in the players regarding them as just another match, rather than a big thing and playing for your country. And that's driven a lot, I know, by finances, but maybe the authorities around the world, whether it be the ICC or the local Boards, must look at restructuring the game to make sure that every kind of competition that you play in is meaningful.

I also think that individual countries must take a far stricter look at themselves, and in South Africa's case, I think we must not forget the fact that most of the time these are young guys, and even more so now where the natural progression - you know, we haven't had isolation any more, that generation is gone, and you've got young guys in the team who, like it or not, are sometimes not aware of the implications and the responsibilities which are on their shoulders. And certainly the UCB, I think, should take steps to put people in managerial positions who know what the business is all about, and are able to give good advice to players, not only on the cricket field, but on all matters, whether it be this kind of thing, whether it be involvement with women, whether it be partying, all those kind of aspects. Just a general father figure.

MR FITZGERALD: Thank you very much, Mr Richardson.



MR GAUNTLETT: Mr Commissioner, it'll be Catholic to Catholic. Mr Manca will deal with Mr Richardson.

COMMISSIONER: Have you got your beads, Mr Richardson?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MANCA: Mr Richardson, just taking up where you left off at the end, about what can be done in the future. I understand it that you are described as the South African Team Commercial Manager. Is that a correct description?

MR RICHARDSON: That's correct.

MR MANCA: And in fact, you represent some of the team members in their individual capacities as well.

MR RICHARDSON: That's right.

MR MANCA: I take it then, that looking to the future, you in that capacity, would have no objection and in fact, would welcome an opportunity to discuss the kind of proposals that you've suggested to the Commission with the United Cricket Board.

MR RICHARDSON: I certainly would. It sometimes places me in a difficult position, because you don't want to be seen as suggesting that someone like yourself would want to be in that position, but certainly - and I think the discussions are more-or-less ongoing with the UCB in that regard.

MR MANCA: Thank you. Just turning then to the 1996 tour of India. I just want to clear up one aspect. If I understand you, you have referred to a meeting with some of the senior players to sort of, as it were, initially discuss the offer that had been made to Mr Cronje.

MR RICHARDSON: That's correct. I can't remember now whether it was a meeting specifically convened for that purpose, or whether it was to discuss the fact whether we were going to play the match at all, and whether it should sort of go back - it should be accepted it's going to be a one-day international. I have an idea that it would have been the latter.

MR MANCA: I understand that, but there is a recollection that before the full team meeting, as it were, there was a discussion.

MR RICHARDSON: Yes, I think so.

MR MANCA: Then you have testified that, to the best of your recollection, and it seems from what we have heard from Mr Symcox, Mr Crookes and Mr Cullinan and Mr Klusener and Mr Gibbs, there definitely was a meeting at which the whole touring squad was present.

MR RICHARDSON: Yes. There's no doubt about that.

MR MANCA: And then we heard Mr Symcox testify that after that meeting, some of the senior players remained behind. You confirm that, you're just unable to recall - you don't have the same vivid recollection as Mr Symcox has as to what happened at that meeting.

MR RICHARDSON: That's correct.

MR MANCA: But you were ill at that time.

MR RICHARDSON: Yes, I was ill, and that's why you know - the impression certainly mustn't be given that it was a separate, third meeting. It was more a case of a couple of guys, I mean, hanging around and you do that a lot in the sub-continent and just discussing - well, just continuing really, the discussions of the meeting, with no real effect.

COMMISSIONER: As I understood Mr Symcox, this third - well, he didn't recall the first one, but the discussion we are now debating took place in a separate - somewhere other than the room where the full meeting had taken place. Am I correct in that recollection?

MR MANCA: Mr Commissioner, no. Mr Symcox said that what happened was that, to his recollection, the full meeting took place in Mr Cronje's room, and after the meeting some of the senior players remained behind. They didn't go off specifically into a huddle. They just stayed behind.

COMMISSIONER: Ja. Then I'm wrong.

MR RICHARDSON: Yes, I - you know, I'm sort of giving Pat Symcox's memory the benefit of the doubt, but it may well be that he's remembering things from the first initial meeting. And it's impossible really for me to say whether that is so or not.

MR MANCA: Yes. What I really want to put to you is this. You have been quoted in the Press as saying that you recall three meetings. What I'm saying - and subsequently, you've also said you're not sure whether there were three meetings. But in fact, what you've told the Commissioner would be consistent with telling a reporter that there were three meetings, because you've told the Commissioner of it being discussed at least on three separate occasions.


MR MANCA: No three separate meetings called for that specific purpose, but that it was discussed on three different occasions.

MR RICHARDSON: Yes, you're quite correct.

MR MANCA: You have said, with the benefit of hindsight, that the discussions should never really have got to the level that they did.

MR RICHARDSON: That's right.

MR MANCA: Would you agree that, also with the benefit of hindsight, and I know you were ill at the time and you didn't play in the match, but with the benefit of hindsight, the fact of the offer should have been brought to Management's attention.

MR RICHARDSON: Only with hindsight, knowing the circumstances, and the circumstances that cricket finds itself in world terms, I agree. At the time it - I hesitate to say it, but it's kind of true, but it was not really an issue. I mean, once the team had decided not to go ahead - you know when I went back to my room, it was not an issue. We were not going to do it. I never gave it another thought.

There's been talk about that people have been told to keep quiet or secret, I certainly don't recall that. I mentioned it, pretty soon thereafter, to my wife, who said after we lost, 'You should have taken the money'. But - so it wasn't when we got back to South Africa we spoke about it. You know, if I was ever asked a question, I would have told you know, 'We got an offer'.

It was - the only reason why we considered it, I think, in the first place, was:

1) It was the circumstances. The fact that it was a benefit;

2) that it was a novelty. There was a feeling of being a 'big deal', and 'Oh, ja, they approached us as well', you know that kind of thing. Nothing else.

And thank goodness, I think Andrew Hudson must take some credit there. He straight-away said he's not having part of it. And the team to their credit, backed him up and agreed. And that was the end of the matter as far as we were concerned.

MR MANCA: Thank you, Mr Richardson. You were present this morning when Dr Bacher was recalled, and you heard what he said this morning in relation to what Mr Muzzell told him. You heard Dr Bacher testify that in fact Mr Muzzell's recollection is that he, Mr Muzzell, wasn't aware that this approach had been made to the team. Does that sound to you correct?

MR RICHARDSON: Could very well be. Robbie Muzzell certainly wasn't present at the meeting. My personal view was that Robbie Muzzell was a very good Manager, although I know that he wasn't understood by all the team members. He was regarded as a bit of a Board member. In other words, he was regarded more as 'them' than 'us'. And so I'm not surprised that he didn't know about it, and that no-one bothered to even tell him.

MR MANCA: Mr Richardson, just moving on to another aspect. You weren't here yesterday, but no doubt you followed the proceedings, and you know that Dr Bacher gave evidence in regard to his knowledge of what he knows is going on in international cricket, and it seems as if it's already drawn some kind of an international response, at least from somebody like Majid Khan who's prepared to go public and confirm that.

When Mr Symcox testified, Mr Symcox testified that - I'm not quite sure when, but he had been approached in India by what he described as a 'prominent present foreign international cricketer'. He said that this cricketer has approached him and asked him whether he was prepared to get involved in match-fixing. My question to you - and Mr Symcox said that he was reluctant to identify that person. My question to you is this, has Mr Symcox ever discussed that with you, and if he has discussed that with you, has he told you who the person he is referring to, and if he has are you prepared to tell the Commissioner?

MR RICHARDSON: He discussed it - he never discussed with me at the time of it happening, only in very recent times he did mention that he had been approached by a present player on the Indian team. And he did mention the name, I do know his name. I don't know if it's all that ...(intervention)

COMMISSIONER: I'm not - you're under no compulsion to disclose the name if you don't choose to.

MR RICHARDSON: Ja, when I hear all these threats, death threats and that, maybe I shouldn't.

MR MANCA: It's a simply question, and I'm not going to press you. Are you prepared to?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I don't think it's my bit to disclose that. If he likes I'm sure I'll tell him in private. I've got no problem with that. But I don't really see it's my place to make it public.

MR MANCA: I have no further questions.


COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Manca. Ms Batohi.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS BATOHI: Thank you, Mr Commissioner. Mr Richardson, just dealing with the '96 offer. With the benefit of hindsight, on your evidence, there were two occasions on which - during which that offer ought to have been dismissed totally, and one would have been, tell me if you agree with me, when Hansie Cronje was approached initially, and the second one would have been the so-called gathering of senior members that you've spoken about.

MR RICHARDSON: That's correct.

MS BATOHI: This offer, in your view, was a serious offer, that was considered seriously by all the members of the team. Is that correct?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes, we considered it seriously. Thinking about it now, we still had a lot of questions to ask if we had decided ja, we're going to take it further. For instance, I didn't even know if it was a bookmaker or a betting syndicate that had made the approach. We didn't know who it was, but certainly we met to consider it.

MS BATOHI: As a senior player at the time, didn't you feel the need to ask Mr Cronje where this offer was coming from, who was making it?

MR RICHARDSON: No. I think maybe if we'd decided, 'Right, we're going to go for it', or accept the money, perhaps those questions would have been asked then. But I just accepted that - at the time I thought, 'Well, Cronje's the guy who had been contacted. As the Captain I suppose he would be the logical person for anybody who wanted to put an offer to the team, he'd be the logical person that you would contact.' And no, we didn't ask those deep questions. I think there's no doubt that we were not making very informed decisions at the time. There was, as I said, that novelty, that almost feeling of excitement that we'd finally also been approached. There was a feeling of - call it rebelliousness? That we weren't happy with the situation about the match being played at all. So we were just all ears for the time being.

MS BATOHI: So are you saying then that because of the unhappiness in the team that might well be one of the reasons why this offer was seriously considered?

MR RICHARDSON: I certainly think that had it been any other kind of match, or any other kind of circumstances, the offer would never have been entertained. And I think that's been borne out by the fact that in, more-or-less, 8 years of international cricket it was the one and only time that any discussions along those lines took place in the team environment.

MS BATOHI: But do you accept that the unhappy circumstances that the team might have found itself in at the time, certainly doesn't justify the offer being considered seriously?

MR RICHARDSON: No, it can never justify it, but what I'm saying is that if you're going to do - I'm trying to think of an analogy, if you're going to do something wrong and you are in a weak situation, if you're going to cheat on your wife, for instance, and you're unhappily married at home and that's the kind of weakened state, and you can - it's almost like a mitigating factor that you are considering something illegal.

COMMISSIONER: We'll enquire into that in due course, Mr Richardson. I think what you're saying is that the players, for all the reasons you've given, were vulnerable.

MR RICHARDSON: Exactly. That's why I do need a good lawyer.

COMMISSIONER: I see we've reached the time that we normally take the adjournment, would that be convenient?

MS BATOHI: I won't be much longer, Mr Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER: Would you like to finish your examination?

MS BATOHI: Yes, please.


MS BATOHI: When this offer was put to the senior players, what was your view at that stage about the offer being taken further or not?

MR RICHARDSON: Again, it's difficult to recall with certainty, but I would say that my offer is that, 'Look, if you're going to consider anything like this, it's got to be a team decision,' and I certainly take responsibility in that regard, that it was then brought to the team as a whole.

MS BATOHI: You've mentioned in your statement that you discussed this offer openly, and if you look at page 6 of your statement, paragraph 5.8, you say:

"It was not something that we kept quiet about, and indeed, I recall telling my wife and sometimes mentioning the fact of the offer at after-dinner speeches subsequent to our return to South Africa."

You confirm that?

MR RICHARDSON: Yes, I confirm. I don't think I would have volunteered the information as part of my speech, but certainly on many occasions where you have a question and answer session and you get asked the question, 'Did you guys ever receive an offer?', there was no - I had no hesitation in revealing that those kind of offers do take place in world cricket, and that we had on one occasion received an offer.

MS BATOHI: And you go further to say:

"I recall also talking to journalists about the offer."

MR RICHARDSON: Yes. Well, the only reason it kind of surfaced again after the Hansie Cronje incident was in direct response to a question from a journalist saying, 'Did you in your experience ever receive an offer?', and I said, 'Yes', straight away.

MS BATOHI: What I'm trying to get at, Mr Richardson, is that it was no secret in the team. You spoke openly about it, and do you find it strange therefore, what is your comment, do you find it strange therefore that no member of the UCB Management became aware of this offer, until very recently?

MR RICHARDSON: Not particularly. You know you don't reach that many people with your after-dinner speeches. And there are many people in this room probably who would never have known about it. So what I'm saying, maybe at worst for the UCB point of view, is that perhaps they - when they're making appointments for managerial positions in future, one way to be sure that they have someone who is able to have the trust of the players, who keeps his ear to the ground, that lives with them, that is trusted by them, rather than someone who is perceived as being as 'one of them', rather than 'one of us'.

MS BATOHI: Was it ever discussed whether Management should be made aware of this offer, at any stage, by senior players or otherwise?

MR RICHARDSON: Not that I recall. In fact, I think that Bob Woolmer came into the meeting soon after that to sort of now talk about the game, and the fact that it was mentioned to him at that stage just shows that really - you know, we had nothing to hide. We had been made an offer, perhaps we were wrong in even considering it, but it was rejected and that was the end of the issue really.

MS BATOHI: Just one last point, you seem to go a little further in your recollection of what the team was required to do, and I refer to your statement, page 4, paragraph 5.5.2, where you state that:

"My recollection is that the proposal was not that we simply lose the game, but that we had to lose it by a certain amount of runs, or that we had to make sure that we scored between 200 and 220 runs."

Do you recall that?

MR RICHARDSON: No, I think I was just trying to make the point there that I cannot recall the details of what we were meant to do, but I just recall that fact that it wouldn't have been that simple. It wasn't a case of just losing. It was some - you kind of had to manufacture the result. But I can't remember if it was us had to get 200 or 220, or between those scores, or whether India had to, I just can't recall those details.

MS BATOHI: Thank you. I have no further questions.

Just one last issue, Mr Commissioner. You mentioned, you know you have given some ideas on how things can be improved, and you said one of the things is that there are lots of meaningless series that are played. Just very briefly, what is your view on the Sharjah Cup?

MR RICHARDSON: I think it's quite a nice tournament, because it's very well organised, it's an opportunity where the UCB treat it as a place where they often allow the wives and girlfriends to go, so it's a pleasant tournament to play in. On the one occasion that I went there we were very keen to win it, it was just after the World Cup where we'd been knocked out in the quarter-finals, so we were going all out to win it. Certainly, I've heard rumours about Sharjah, but at that tournament there were no approaches made to the South African team, as far as I know, and - but I have heard subsequently that the Sharjah Tournament is - there's been doubts over some of the matches played there.

But that is the type of tournament really, that I'm referring to, and unless the ICC make it maybe as part of a big league set-up where you can, you know, it means something to win that tournament, then it's going to be open to this kind of misuse.

MS BATOHI: Thank you. I have no further questions.


COMMISSIONER: We'll take the adjournment now, and may I see the legal representatives for a moment or two, please?





CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DICKERSON: Thank you, Mr Commissioner. Mr Richardson, you didn't think that the offer which had been put in 1996 was something to be kept quiet. You spoke of it at after dinner - in after-dinner speeches, you mentioned it to the media. It follows from that that you were not asked to keep it quiet, were you?

MR RICHARDSON: That's correct.

MR DICKERSON: You also indicated in a response to a question from Ms Batohi, that you had some doubts about some of the matches which had been played at Sharjah. You didn't mention which or when. I'd like to put it to you this way, none of those doubts concerned the performance of the South African team.

MR RICHARDSON: No, none whatsoever. The only time I've heard anything about those doubts about matches was as - because I have the position that I hold with the South African team as their representative, I have attended meetings of the - they call it FICA, the Federation for International Cricket Associations, and at one of the meetings the problem of - world wide of match fixing was discussed, and again, no specifics were mentioned, but Sharjah, the tournament, was mentioned.

MR DICKERSON: Thank you. I have no further questions.


COMMISSIONER: Re-examination, Mr Fitzgerald?

MR FITZGERALD: No re-examination.

COMMISSIONER: Mr Richardson, thank you very much for your assistance.




MS BATOHI: Yes, Mr Commissioner, at this stage I ask that the proceedings be postponed until Thursday at 9h30.

COMMISSIONER: Yes, it's almost inevitable in proceedings of this nature that a stage is reached where time is required for further investigation and preparation. I have discussed this with the legal representatives and I think the feeling is that the adjournment sought by Ms Batohi is unavoidable. So the proceedings will stand adjourned until the 15th of June, that's Thursday next, at 9h30, and that I must also stress is a provisional date. But if it comes to my attention timeously that for one or other reason it won't be possible to recommence on that date, we will make - do all that we possibly can to alert the public of that fact through the media. But as at present be advised we are adjourned until 9h30 on the morning of Thursday the 15th of June.


Related Links:

Cricinfo's Coverage of Match-Fixing Allegations