The disgraced former cricket captain went to court to try to overturn his life ban from the game
Khadija Magardie
Given all the claims of impecuniosity from the gabled manors of Fancourt beforehand it should come as no surprise that when his day in court finally arrived this week, Hansie Cronje’s chief objective was to make a packet once again.
Despite declarations in the run-up to the case, including during high-profile media interviews that he was not interested in making money out of cricket again the language used by Cronje’s lawyers was clear: overturn the lifelong ban on their client to pave the way for him to cash in on the game again.
The Pretoria High Court heard from the disgraced sportsman’s lawyers how their client who was exposed last year for accepting money from bookies in exchange for “tips” on matches felt he had been treated too harshly by cricket’s local governing body, the United Cricket Board (UCB).
In April last year Cronje’s contract of employment with the UCB was not renewed. The publicity around the scandal was followed by the setting up of the King Commission of Inquiry into Cricket Match-Fixing where several cricketers, including Cronje, were grilled about their role in accepting bribes for fixing matches, or giving tips on match forecasting.
In November of the same year the UCB passed a resolution that had the effect of slapping a lifelong ban on Cronje. He was effectively barred from membership of, or participation in any activities of, the organisation, its structures and its affiliates.
This, says Cronje, has been an invasion by the UCB on his private life and dignity.
UCB head Dr Ali Bacher, like Cronje, was absent from the courtroom. But the legal counsel provided riveting watching nonetheless.
The mood in the courtroom was upbeat. No high-profile sports names turned up, though several graying men in official-looking blue blazers and Bally loafers slipped in behind the UCB legal team’s benches as observers on the second day.
Cronje’s legal team, headed by Advocate Malcom Wallis, SC, appeared grim throughout proceedings, referring repeatedly to thick tomes stacked on the desk during breaks.
The former cricket captain’s lawyers asked the court to grant relief in the form of setting aside the resolution passed by the UCB, as well as to grant an interdict restraining the UCB from “taking steps aimed at interfering with his [Cronje’s] personal, private and social life as well as his right to secure employment and income from, example, commentating on cricket matches, and coaching cricket teams”.
They argued that Cronje had been prejudiced in several ways by the imposition of the ban. Firstly, that it was passed without notice to their client, and that he was not presented with any charges or complaints that justified the “serious and far-reaching” punishment of the life-ban.
Secondly, that he was not afforded a “fair and impartial” hearing before an independent disciplinary committee, before the ban was slapped on him.
They went on to add that the resolution was an “interference” in their client’s life, and severely impinged on his “ability to earn a living now that his cricket-playing career is over”.
They further argued that the aim of the ban was to punish Cronje, and that the UCB was acting maliciously by enforcing it.
Throughout, Cronje’s guilt was not disputed his legal team argued that regardless of the merits, there should have been a hearing wherein Cronje would be allowed to present his case.
One of the surprise elements introduced by Cronje’s legal team was the argument that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, because it was essentially a dispute between Cronje and an employer. This was disputed by the UCB, which contended that because the ban was effected some time after Cronje left the employ of the UCB, this was not relevant.
The UCB’s legal team appeared confident throughout proceedings.
Their senior counsel Wim Trengove, SC, did not mince his words. Barely a minute into his delivery of his heads of argument, Trengove pronounced bluntly that Cronje was a “cheat” who had had sold his own integrity “for reasons of pure avarice” and that the UCB was fully within its rights to ban him.
“It is extraordinary that a self-confessed cheat should be using the law to compel the cricket establishment to play with him,” Trengove said.
Wallis had earlier dismissed a suggestion by the UCB’s legal team that there were several areas involving cricket that fell outside the ambit of the umbrella body, in which Cronje could engage, without being involved in representative cricket.
To bursts of laughter from the court, the UCB’s legal counsel said that, for instance, the applicant could open the “Cronje Academy for Clean Cricket”. But the UCB in South Africa, Wallis argued, had far-reaching and wide-ranging influence, and there were hardly any cricketing activities in the country that it was not involved with in some way. As a result, their client’s activities were severely constricted.
Cronje’s affidavit made it clear that material gain was paramount, stressing the UCB’s ban was unlawful specifically because it was a “clear and unlawful interference with [Cronje’s] common law and constitutional rights to use the skills and talents which he has acquired to the best of his ability for the purposes of earning an income”.
This provided the UCB with the perfect opportunity to whip out a handy weapon in its arsenal an interview conducted with Cronje by Radio 702’s John Robbie. Quoting extensively from the transcript, Trengove laid bare the contradictions in Cronje’s stated motives on the one hand, he said he did not want to make money from cricket again, but in his affidavit, argued that the main threat posed by the ban was to his “livelihood”.
Cronje told Robbie he wanted to overturn the ban so he could “put something back in the game”. This, said Trengove, was contradicted by court papers indicating that the ban should be overturned to allow Cronje again, he emphasised, “a cheat” to make money from cricket again.
Referring to Cronje’s legal team’s contention that their client had been unfairly discriminated against by the UCB, and that his constitutional rights of freedom of association had been violated, Trengove said that some admirable sentiments had been expressed, but reminded the court: “this all sits uncomfortably coming from the mouth of a cheat”.
Trengove contended that the UCB did not have the power to hold a disciplinary hearing, since it had no jurisdiction over Cronje, whose contract had already expired and that the ban was the only way in which it could effectively disassociate itself from Cronje.
He acknowledged that it was partly punitive but said, given the circumstances, it was justifiable.
The Pretoria High Court on Thursday reserved judgement.