Sports

If Hansie Is Lying...

Cronje's accusation is sensational, but may have little standing under Indian law

Advertisement

If Hansie Is Lying...
info_icon

The South African public, by all available accounts, believes Cronje's allegations against Azharuddin. But there is a feeling in India that Cronje could be lying in order to deflect further attention from himself. If indeed he is lying, Cronje would have perjured himself. What ramifications does it have for the former Proteas skipper if it is established that he is lying? What about the immunity he's been offered? Does it protect him even if he lies? Procedurally, the King Commission will have to satisfy itself regarding the veracity of Cronje's statements. This will happen on Tuesday, June 20, when the commission is expected to cross-examine him. If perjury is determined, Cronje could face the consequences under the relevant provisions of South African law relating to that offence, as well as the offence of enticing others to commit questionable actions. So far as the question of immunity is concerned the commission is understood to have granted immunity on the condition that it has to be satisfied that Cronje has told the whole truth.

Advertisement

On the question of the issue's ramifications in India, Supreme Court senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan feels a lot will depend on the finding of the King Commission, but as such Cronje's statements are worthless under Indian law. Even if the commission makes a finding that may be of some corroborative value both for the bcci and the CBI, it won't have the status of a judicial proceeding. South Africa has effectively absolved their principal offender and provided him with more than a coat of teflon: this protects Cronje from the heat as well as prevents him from being cooked.

Advertisement

Other than the question of admissibility, it will have to be determined if this evidence has any bearing, whether it can be used, and if so, how. In terms of the criminal inquiry, the CBI is looking into the offences that took place in India. And as far as those are concerned, it has to be first established that this criminal inquiry indeed relates to Indian offences. Section 3 and 4 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is by and large not extra-territorial. They have a bearing particularly on offences committed in India and by Indian citizens abroad. So, the depositions before the King Commission must first relate to an Indian offence where the IPC applies.

Further, Cronje's testimony has to refer to an ingredient of an Indian offence for it to have relevance. In other words, the transactions that it relates to must be part of that offence. If Azhar in fact introduced Cronje to a bookmaker, Azhar's complicity has to be established. Complicity means direct participation in the crime. What's the crime? Was he an abettor, a principal accused or a co-conspirator? None of this is clear from Cronje's present testimony.

Assuming it relates to a crime and is indeed relevant, the status of the statement has to be determined. If it is simply something that is going to be referred to in the King Commission report, it at best may have some corroborative value but by itself doesn't constitute any definite proof. And that value cannot be determined at this point. Right now, it is a situation of hearsay upon hearsay.

Advertisement

If Cronje wants to put his honesty where his mouth is, he will have to make his statement here without any immunity and subject himself to cross-examination and possible arrest and imprisonment without bail till the investigation ends. Charges from afar under the safety of immunity have little value in law nor even otherwise. Thus the value of his deposition is legally questionable.

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement