CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND - MARCH 11: South Africa's Paul Adams celebrates the wicket of New Zealand's Dion Nash lbw for 14 on the first day of the second test at Jade Stadium, Christchurch, Thursday. (Ross Setford/Getty Images)
NEWS ANALYSIS
A “bundle of documents” with potentially far-reaching consequences in the Mark Boucher disciplinary matter was delivered to Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, Cricket South Africa’s (CSA) attorneys, on Friday, the Mail & Guardian understands.
The documents, sent by Boucher’s legal team, contained some interesting and potentially incriminating information about Paul Adams, one of CSA’s key witnesses in the Boucher disciplinary, as well as other members of the national cricket team in the late 1990s.
“The delivery of the package and the Adams statement about his withdrawal were less than 48 hours apart but there’s also a possibility that this was mere coincidence,” said a CSA source. “We are entering the realms of speculation, but the bundle could have precipitated Adams’ decision on Sunday to withdraw as a witness in the hearing against his former keeper.”
With Adams saying in his Sunday press statement that “it is not my job to find Mark Boucher guilty or not guilty”, the CSA discovered that their case of “racism” and “subliminal racism” against the current Proteas coach collapsed with a slightly pathetic whimper.
Earlier on Tuesday, the CSA formally withdrew the case against Boucher “unreservedly”, bringing to an end an episode in which cricket politics — and not cricket itself — has become the main topic of national debate.
The CSA will pay Boucher’s legal costs.
“I am glad that the process has finally come to an end and that CSA has accepted that the charges against me are unsustainable,” said Boucher on Tuesday.
In the context of reiterating his earlier apology to Adams, Boucher added: “Some of the things said in those days were totally inappropriate and unacceptable and, in retrospect, understandably offensive.”
Although the CSA was brave to call it a day on a case they clearly knew they could not win, it’s reasonable to ask how they were hoodwinked into such a high-stakes game and how they deluded themselves for so long that their case was sustainable.
It is clear now that speculation about the CSA’s witnesses being thin on the ground was accurate. With Adams’ weekend statement following Boucher’s former assistant, Enoch Nkwe’s publicly expressed reluctance to testify against him, so the CSA’s case folded like the Mumbai Indians’ lower middle order.
The CSA argued throughout that when the report of the ombudsman, Dumisa Ntsebeza, after the Social Justice and Nation-Building (SJN) hearings made only “tentative findings”, they were compelled to take things further or face accusations of sweeping the issue under the carpet. But why did they entertain the SJN hearings in the first place?
The interim board clearly had misgivings about the SJN, because the members postponed its first sitting and only reluctantly allowed it to get rolling. Remember, the SJN was the product of former CSA board member Eugenia Kula-Ameyaw’s fervid imagination. As a board member through the CSA’s worst governance meltdown since the “double bonus” scandal of 2009, Kula-Ameyaw has long since been discredited as a voice of good governance or fiduciary reason, yet the CSA chose to take her seriously. Why?
If subtle racism, exclusion and insensitivity are at the heart of the domestic game, there are other ways to build trust and inclusivity. This whole tawdry business has set South African cricket back years.
After the CSA’s withdrawal of the charges against Boucher, social media was awash with bile. When are we simply going to debate long and hard over whether Wiaan Mulder is worth his place in the Test side?
Spare a thought for Adams and Nkwe in all of this. Both became victims of an anti-Boucher narrative driven by individuals in the SJN and those on the most recent CSA board. Paradoxically they have had legitimate concerns — and in Adams’ case, hurts — perverted by factions in the CSA that seemed hell-bent on narrowing down what is generic and institutional and finding that only Boucher is to blame.
Neither one of them was interested in embarking on an anti-Boucher witch-hunt but that’s what their witness became. Boucher has been bloodied by this but so, too, have Adams and Nkwe. Both deserved better from their former employers. It’s unlikely that either one of them will trust the CSA for a very long time.
Finally, some cricket-related points. It is obvious that Boucher’s Test record is one of two halves. He started badly and his record with Faf du Plessis was poor, but his record with Test skipper Dean Elgar reads: won seven out of nine.
Given that the South Africans are a team without self-evident superstars, such numbers suggest that they go to England in July with a decent chance of coming away with their first series win in England in 10 years. It will be hard, to be sure, particularly as Ben Stokes, the new England skipper, will be keen to prove the naysayers wrong.
Then again, Elgar and Boucher are beginning to form a formidable partnership. They’re starting to fit together very snugly indeed, a bit like a slice of apricot on a chicken sosatie.
[/membership]