- Commissioner’s statement on Ventura, Marte
- Ronnie O’Sullivan: Masters champion ‘felt so vulnerable’ in final
- Arron Fletcher Wins 2017 WSOP International Circuit Marrakech Main Event ($140,224)
- Smith challenges Warner to go big in India
- Moncada No. 1 on MLB Pipeline’s Top 10 2B Prospects list
- Braves land 2 on MLB Pipeline’s Top 10 2B Prospects list
- Kingery makes MLB Pipeline’s Top 10 2B Prospects list
- New Zealand wrap up 2-0 after Bangladesh implosion
- Mathews, Pradeep, Gunathilaka to return to Sri Lanka
- Elliott hopes for rain for Poli
ICC chairman says Thakur wanted letter against government interference
- Updated: December 17, 2016
ICC chairman Shashank Manohar has contradicted BCCI president Anurag Thakur’s claim in his affidavit to the Supreme Court that he did not ask the ICC for a letter stating that the Lodha Committee’s recommendation to have a member of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s office on the apex council of the BCCI amounted to government interference in the board.
In an email to the Lodha Committee on November 2, Manohar wrote that Thakur had asked him to issue a letter but he had refused to do so.
The matter was last heard in the Supreme Court on December 15 and the court said there was, on first impression, enough evidence for a charge of perjury against Thakur.
Manohar, in his email, said Thakur had made the request on August 6, at an ICC meeting also attended by ICC directors Giles Clarke, David Peever and Imran Khawaja, as well as ICC CEO David Richardson and COO Iain Higgins.
“During the meeting Mr. Thakur pointed out to me that when I was the President of BCCI, a submission was advanced before the Supreme Court at my behest that the appointment of a nominee of the CAG on the Apex Council might amount to Governmental interference and would invoke an action of suspension from the ICC,” Manohar wrote. “He therefore requested me to issue a letter to that effect in my capacity as ICC Chairman.
“I declined to issue such a letter and explained to him that the said submission was advanced before the Hon Supreme Court when the court was hearing the matter. However, on 18-7-2016 the Hon SC delivered its judgement in the matter and rejected …