Jayasuriya banned for two years for destroying evidence of corruption sought by ICC
Dubai, Feb 26: Legendary Sri Lanka batsman Sanath Jayasuriya was Tuesday banned for two years after admitting to obstruct an anti-corruption probe by "destroying" the phones which were sought as evidence by the International Cricket Council (ICC).
Jayasuriya admitted breaching the anti-corruption unit (ACU) code of the global body on two separate counts.
"As a result of the admissions, he has accepted a sanction of a two-year period of ineligibility," the ICC stated.
However, he wasn't given the maximum punishment of five years for his breach after the world body took his "previous good conduct" into account. Jayasuriya's sanction will be a backdated one starting from October 16, 2018.
The left-handed batsman and orthodox spinner is a former Sri Lankan captain who was a key member of the 1996 World Cup-winning team before going on to serve two terms as the chairman of selectors.
The 49-year-old was adjudged 'Player of the Tournament' during Sri Lanka's victorious 1996 World Cup campaign.
Jayasuriya was questioned as part of the ICC's investigation of wide scale corruption in Sri Lankan cricket.
The Article 2.4.6 of ICC Code of Conduct deals with "failure or refusal, without compelling justification, to cooperate with any investigation carried out by the ACU."
The Article 2.4.7 deals with "obstructing or delaying any investigation that may be carried out by the ACU, including concealing, tampering with or destroying any documentation or other information..."
Alex Marshall, ICC General Manager ACU said: "This conviction under the Code demonstrates the importance of participants in cricket co-operating with investigations. Compelling participants to cooperate under the Code is a vital weapon in our efforts to rid our sport of corruptors. These rules are essential to maintain the integrity of our sport.
As per the detailed judgement uploaded by the ICC, Jayasuriya was asked to hand over his mobile devices after ACU GM Alex Marshall was satisfied that information on the mobile devices belonging to him in the period between January 1, 2017 to 22 September, 2017 "might be relevant to the investigation."
Marshall instructed the ACU team to "demand" the two mobile phones.
Accordingly, Jayasuriya was investigated by the ICC ACU unit on three specific dates -- September 22, 23 and October 5 in 2017.
As per the copy of the judgement, the ACU team had specifically asked "Jayasuriya to give details of all mobile phones that he owned, used or had access to".
On September 22, 2017, Jayasuriya informed the investigators that he had two mobile devices.
However the prolific batsman of yesteryears then changed his statement on the very next day (September 23, 2017) and divulged that he had two more mobile phones which got lost between May 15 to 23/24, 2017. These two numbers had last digits of '888' and '088'.
He told the ACU officials that those two numbers were not in use.
However, Jayasuriya had no inkling that the "investigators called up on the numbers with last digits '888' and the phone rang contrary to his statement."
But on the second occasion when ICC officials tried, there was an automated response.
On October 5, when Jayasuriya was represented by his legal counsel, the player said that he had destroyed the earlier phone after a private video went viral and he was "under stress".
But according to his lawyer, it was his driver, who retrieved the sim card and put it in another phone. It was later handed over to Jayasuriya, who then used that earlier '888' sim to check text messages.
The ACU unit had proof that between March 15, 2017 and September 14, 2017, hundreds of calls and text messages were recorded on the number ending with '888' which proved that the cricketer was lying.
Once his lawyer admitted that Jayasuriya had misled the investigation, he was charged with relevant sections 2.4.6 and 2.4.7 respectively.
The ACU recently gave an amnesty in relation to Sri Lanka Cricket resulting in 11 players and other participants coming forward with new information.
"The amnesty has worked very well and has delivered significant new and important intelligence," Marshall said.
"I am very grateful to those who participated in the amnesty and as a result of the information shared we now have a much clearer picture of the situation in Sri Lanka and our investigations are continuing."
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bhojshala complex registered as 'mosque' in old revenue records: Muslim side to MP HC
Indore (PTI): The disputed Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex has historically been registered as a 'mosque' in revenue records and available sources don't clearly mention any Saraswati temple established by then-king Raja Bhoj, the Muslim side has told the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Hindu community considers Bhojshala a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while the Muslim side calls the 11th-century monument Kamal Maula Mosque. The disputed complex located in Dhar district is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
During the hearing before the HC's Indore bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi on Wednesday, Qazi Moinuddin questioned two PILs filed as intervenors in the Bhojshala case by an organisation named Hindu Front for Justice, one Kuldeep Tiwari and another individual.
Moinuddin claims to be a descendant of Sufi saint Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti and the 'Sajjadanashin' (spiritual head, guru, or successor of a Sufi shrine, khanqah, or religious site).
The PILs state that Bhojshala is actually a Saraswati temple and only Hindus should be granted the right to worship at the disputed complex.
Moinuddin's lawyer, Noor Ahmed Sheikh, claimed in the court that his client's ancestors, who are descendants of Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti, have historically held titles to the complex, and the site was also recorded as a "mosque" in government revenue records.
He contended that those associated with the management of the Kamal Maula Mosque, located within the complex, have been in "continuous and peaceful occupation" of the site for a long time.
Citing Muslim law, Sheikh argued that in the case of religious property, particularly a mosque or its related properties, officials such as the Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli (person entrusted with management, maintenance, and administration of a Waqf), and their descendants, not only have the right to intervene, but also have the right to manage and use such a structure.
Citing provisions of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904, the Muslim side's lawyer said the term "in-charge of the property" is used in this law, which makes it clear that the person or party who has been in charge of a property for a long time has rights over it.
During the hearing, Touseef Warsi, the lawyer representing the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society of Dhar, claimed that Hindu parties in both PILs had made "misleading representations" regarding historical facts before the high court.
He further claimed that available historical sources do not clearly mention the existence of a Saraswati temple established by Raja Bhoj, the legendary king of the Parmar dynasty who ruled Dhar from 1010 to 1055.
The ASI, a central government agency, has adopted three different positions in the lawsuits filed regarding the Bhojshala dispute, changing its answers from time to time, and this situation raises serious questions about judicial scrutiny of the complex, Warsi submitted.
He raised objections regarding the ASI's process of scientific survey of the Bhojshala complex, carried out on the HC order in 2024, and the method of videography and requested the court to examine these objections.
The hearing in the Bhojshala case will continue on Thursday.
The HC has been regularly hearing four petitions and one writ appeal since April 6, contesting the religious nature of the monument.
