It is over one-and-half year the board-appointed probe committee is continuing with its work under the guidance and chairmanship of a sitting judge of the Shariat Court, based in Quetta, Justice Ejaz Yousuf. The judge, a cricket representative from Balochistan, had informed the last council session in Lahore that some more cricketers - about five in number - were to be cross-examined by his panel. He had submitted an interim report to the meeting which presumably was not acceptable to the higher tier of the board since it extended the tenure of the investigators by three more months. There was a general feeling that no cricketer can be taken as guilty of betting and match-fixing till the committee had analysed the statements of the players and it had given a final 'verdict'.

Those following Press reports of the inquiries are perplexed as to why two panels of the parliamentarians - one of the Senate, the other of the National Assembly - have taken notice of the accusations and are conducting their own proceedings. Besides, the government, on the request of the PCB, has set up a single- member judicial commission and nominated Mr Justice Malik Mohammad Qayyum of the Lahore High Court to start his inquest into the matter. The new commission formulated its terms of reference and mode and method of its working. It is still not known why the cricket board thought it right that a judicial probe should be launched when its own three-man committee is headed by a member of the bench. Certainly with so many panels seized of the same issue and going ahead with their work the layman, the club cricketers and the fans would like to know whose inquiry and verdict would carry weight and be enforceable. On what authority the parliamentarians have taken up the cudgels with the cricket officials? Can't the PCB's own committee, now that it has been given a three-month extension by the council - be allowed to complete its findings and come out with its indictment, on the basis of concrete evidence against one or several accused cricketers. If the allegations are flimsy or are disproved will there still be the need for further investigations by the parliamentarians and the judicial commission? It may, many followers of cricket fear, be an endless exercise and might amount to character assassination of some of the leading stars of the game that could drive them out of cricket scene. The inquiries are giving a bad name not only to the national cricketers but to the board itself and the country. The whole manner and attitude of the Pakistan squads will be questioned and the players, howsoever imposing and impressive their performances may be, will not be given due respect and honour by the international media and the officials of the cricket-playing countries. The inquest may fearfully prove counter-productive even though one sadly finds that the incomplete report of the PCB committee, a secret document, has found its way to a foreign agency in Kuala Lumpur, where the Commonwealth Games are being held, pinpointing two former captains Wasim Akram and Salim Malik and Ijaz Ahmad as the main actors in the betting and match-fixing game. How the members came to this conclusion is beyond comprehension when they themselves say that they have to further examine more players this in order to draw their final opinion and finding?

As one remembers the controversy was kicked up by three Australian Test players viz Shane Warne, Tim May and Mark Waugh during their team's tour of Pakistan in late 1994. They alleged that in Karachi on the fourth evening of the Test and later at a Presidential reception in Rawalpindi before a one-dayer they were asked to give a poor show and throw away the matches for sums of money as high as $ 2,00,000. This was an offer of bribery and an unethical act. Strangely enough nothing was heard of Malik's conversation with Warne and Waugh until five months had elapsed when the daily Sydney Morning Herald came out with the stunning revelation. Pakistan's own side was then in Zimbabwe where rumours were rife that the visitors were not proving equal to the task and had given the first Test to the home squad on a silver platter due to match-fixing and betting scandals as was the case in the earlier one-off inaugural Test against South Africa at Johannesburg. Salim Malik vehemently denied the allegation as manager Intikhab Alam also backed the captain and said there was no truth in it; the team members were not linked with any betting syndicate.

The International Cricket Council refused to conduct an inquiry even though it had reportedly received the Australian players' sworn statement. Javed Burki, at that time heading the ad hoc committee of the PCB, air-dashed to Lord's to see for himself the papers with the Australian board's comments. Without asking the ICC to launch their proceedings or setting up his own probe he apparently accepted the one-sided version of the Australians and severely reprimanded the team members on their African safari. The attitude of Burki was hard to understand. One thought that like Intikhab he would reject and regret the Aussie stance of blackmailing the Pakistani captain and turning their defeat in Pakistan into a bribery scandal, though the home teams's triumph was clear-cut and was earned through better all-round display.

Later when Arif Abbasi took over as the Chief Executive of the board he asked Mr Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, former judge of the Supreme Court, to conduct an independent inquest and find out the real truth. After going through the material Ebrahim wanted the Australian trio - Warne, May and G. Waugh - to appear before him for cross-examination. The Australians were unwilling to accede to Ebrahim's procedure of inquiry. In what was an ex parte report and 'verdict' investigator Ebrahim described the allegations against Malik as unfounded and termed them concocted for whatever may have been the Australians' motive. Mr Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim had been governor of Sindh, is a respected and eminent lawyer and a former member of the higher judiciary. Can his opinion after going into the details of the case and the Australians' statment be doubted?

The followers of the game in the country are within their right to ask the cricket board what was the necessity of a renewed probe - now a serial of investigations. Are the evidences believable, even though some Pakistan players, including captain Aamir Sohail and former skipper Rashid Latif, came out with their own accusations? Where is a concrete proof. Even though Justice Qayyum of LHC has started his inquest no solid proof of the betting and match-fixing allegations has been put before him.

The evidence, reportedly on oath, of former Test pacer, Ataur Rahman, is being given much credence by those who are campaigning to get ousted Salim Malik, Ijaz and Wasim with the surprising addition of Saqlain Mushtaq for good. The squad will thus be considerably depleted since no replacements of their class are available for the time being. The bowler is reported to have complained against Malik, Ijaz and Wasim of a deliberate case of match-fixing in a New Zealand one-dayer in 1993-94, which match was lost by Pakistan. Nobody knows of the other side of the story. At whose behest the drive has been launched against the cricket stars and who is to suffer - the team, the country or cricket itself?

One is at a loss to understand the purpose behind the set of inquiries after Justice Ebrahim had done considerable hard work to give his opinion.

Many want to know how the board officialdom sought the government's help in setting up a judicial commission? The PCB has its own constitution and code of conduct and any government involvement in a matter of cricket discipline is unimaginable particularly when a PCB committee is on the point of completing its work.

The string of investigations is creating utter confusion. How can the cricketers be expected to put up an enthusiastic and decent display when the Sword of Damocles is hanging over their heads. The harassment of the senior players must stop otherwise there will be setbacks in the country's international cricket commitments and campaigns.