Sri Lankan Spinner Praveen Jayawickrama Charged with Multiple Breaches of ICC Anti-Corruption Code

Sri Lankan Spinner Praveen Jayawickrama Charged with Multiple Breaches of ICC Anti-Corruption Code

In a significant development within the cricketing world, Sri Lankan left-arm spinner Praveen Jayawickrama has been charged with multiple violations of the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) Anti-Corruption Code. The charges stem from allegations that the 25-year-old cricketer failed to report approaches made to him to engage in corrupt practices, specifically in relation to match-fixing. The accusations relate to both international matches and games in the Lanka Premier League (LPL) during 2021.

Allegations and Charges

The ICC, on its official website, made a formal announcement regarding the charges against Jayawickrama. According to the cricket governing body, the young spinner is facing three distinct charges under the Anti-Corruption Code. The most severe of these involves his alleged failure to promptly report to the ICC’s Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU) approaches made to him by individuals seeking to influence the outcome of matches through corrupt means.

The first charge is under Article 2.4.4 of the ICC Anti-Corruption Code, which addresses the failure to report, without unnecessary delay, any details of an approach or invitation to engage in corrupt practices in relation to international matches. This charge implies that Jayawickrama was approached by corrupt individuals or entities who sought to manipulate the outcome of future international games, and he allegedly did not report these approaches to the ACU in a timely manner, as required by the code.

The second charge, also under Article 2.4.4, pertains specifically to the 2021 Lanka Premier League, a T20 cricket league in Sri Lanka. The charge accuses Jayawickrama of failing to report an approach in which he was allegedly asked to approach another player on behalf of a corrupter. The intent of this approach was to influence the outcome of LPL matches, thereby engaging in corrupt conduct that could compromise the integrity of the sport. This aspect of the charges highlights the broader scope of the alleged corruption, indicating that multiple players may have been targeted or involved.

The third and perhaps most concerning charge is related to the obstruction of an investigation. The ICC has accused Jayawickrama of violating Article 2.4.7 of the Anti-Corruption Code, which prohibits obstructing or delaying an investigation, including the destruction or tampering of evidence. According to the ICC, Jayawickrama allegedly deleted messages from his communication devices that were directly related to the corrupt approaches. These messages are believed to have contained critical evidence that could have aided the ICC in their investigation into the match-fixing allegations. The deletion of these messages is seen as a serious breach of the Anti-Corruption Code, as it potentially hinders the ability of the ACU to fully investigate the extent of corruption within the sport.

ICC’s Response and Next Steps

The ICC has given Jayawickrama a 14-day period, starting from August 6, 2024, to respond to the charges. During this time, he has the opportunity to either accept the charges or contest them. If he chooses to contest the charges, the case will likely proceed to a formal hearing where evidence will be presented, and Jayawickrama will have the chance to defend himself against the allegations.

In its statement, the ICC underscored the seriousness with which it treats violations of its Anti-Corruption Code. The governing body reiterated its commitment to maintaining the integrity of the sport and ensuring that all players and officials adhere to the highest ethical standards. The ICC’s Anti-Corruption Unit plays a crucial role in investigating and preventing corrupt practices within cricket, and it relies heavily on the cooperation of players and officials to report any suspicious activities or approaches.

The ICC’s decision to take action concerning the charges related to the Lanka Premier League alongside the international match-fixing allegations indicates a coordinated approach between the ICC and Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC). According to the ICC, this decision was made in accordance with Articles 1.7.4.1 and 1.8.1 of the Anti-Corruption Code, which allow for such joint actions in cases where the corruption allegations span both domestic and international competitions.

The Broader Context of Corruption in Cricket

The charges against Jayawickrama come at a time when the issue of corruption in cricket remains a significant concern. The sport has a long and troubled history with match-fixing and other forms of corruption, which have at times tarnished its reputation and led to severe penalties for those found guilty. High-profile cases, such as those involving former South African captain Hansie Cronje, Pakistan’s Mohammad Amir, and India’s Sreesanth, serve as stark reminders of the damaging impact that corruption can have on the sport.

In recent years, the ICC has taken a more proactive stance in combating corruption, implementing stricter regulations, and increasing the resources allocated to the ACU. The emphasis on education and awareness programs for players, particularly those from countries where cricket is popular but where economic disparities might make players more vulnerable to corrupt approaches, has been a key aspect of the ICC’s anti-corruption strategy.

The Lanka Premier League, like many other domestic T20 leagues around the world, has been identified as a potential target for corrupt activities due to the high financial stakes and the involvement of international players. The charges against Jayawickrama suggest that these concerns are not unfounded and that the threat of corruption remains a persistent challenge for cricket’s governing bodies.

Potential Consequences

If found guilty, Jayawickrama could face severe sanctions, including a lengthy ban from all forms of cricket. Such a ban would not only be a significant setback for his career but would also serve as a strong message to other players about the consequences of engaging in or failing to report corrupt activities. The ICC has a range of penalties at its disposal, depending on the severity of the offence, including fines, suspensions, and lifetime bans.

The case also has broader implications for Sri Lanka Cricket, which has been grappling with issues of governance and corruption in recent years. The involvement of a national team player in such allegations could further damage the reputation of cricket in Sri Lanka and raise questions about the effectiveness of the country’s anti-corruption measures.

Conclusion

The charges against Praveen Jayawickrama highlight the ongoing battle against corruption in cricket. As the ICC continues its investigation, the case will be closely watched by the cricketing community and fans around the world. The outcome will not only determine the future of a promising young cricketer but will also serve as a measure of the effectiveness of the ICC’s Anti-Corruption Code in safeguarding the integrity of the sport.