Ken Borland

Paul Adams’ refusal to testify in Mark Boucher’s disciplinary hearing is an unfortunate development that will not only considerably weaken Cricket South Africa’s case, but also reflects badly on the former spin bowler and makes it harder for the current Proteas coach to clear his name in an unambiguous fashion.

Having showed an admirable level of courage in testifying at the Social Justice and Nation-Building hearings about an offensive team song the Proteas used in fines meetings in the late 1990s, Adams now seems to have lost his nerve when it comes to presenting and justifying the same evidence, but this time with Boucher’s representatives being able to cross-examine and test his claims.

It shows again that for SJN Ombudsman Advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza to err so badly in allowing inflammatory allegations to be publicly aired without being properly subjected to legal processes has only created more headaches for Cricket South Africa.

Adams was also disingenuous in his weekend statement announcing his decision when he claimed he never meant to single out Boucher in his SJN testimony. While Boucher’s name was admittedly brought into the conversation by one of Ntsebeza’s legal assistants, Adams went on to say that Boucher “should come and say sorry, if that’s enough, but we can’t brush this under the carpet”.

Adams also went on to target Boucher’s appointment as Titans coach in 2016.

No amount of “sorry”s can fully cleanse the stain of being unjustifiably called a racist and Adams’ refusal to further discuss his allegations has denied Boucher the chance of properly exonerating himself if he is innocent of the offences his former team-mate accuses him of doing.

With Enoch Nkwe also not expected to testify, CSA’s entire case could quickly disintegrate. But the public may not be as quick to forget the allegations that were made against Boucher but which have never actually been disproven.

That could only have happened if Adams had availed himself to answer such probing questions as what other songs were sung, what songs did he participate in and who actually wrote the offensive lyrics?

Having provided the matches to those who are looking to burn down Boucher’s career, Adams has now slipped out of being held accountable for what he said.

With the disciplinary hearing just a week away, Cricket South Africa’s legal team may have to mull a completely different strategy to try and get rid of Proteas head coach Mark Boucher following Paul Adams’ decision to not testify against his erstwhile team-mate and the likelihood that former national team assistant coach Enoch Nkwe is also not going to participate.

Adams issued a statement at the weekend in which he said he was not willing to be cross-examined over the allegations of racism he made at the Social Justice and Nation-Building hearings, which have been a central pillar of CSA’s case against Boucher.

CSA have also charged Boucher over his treatment of Nkwe, who resigned from his post in August last year, using the reasons he gave to the board as ammunition. But informed sources say Nkwe is not willing to present evidence, believing the disciplinary hearing is a matter between CSA and the head coach.

Boucher is facing charges of gross misconduct, with CSA seeking his dismissal, and, in terms of labour law, he has the right to have any witnesses against him cross-examined. If neither Adams nor Nkwe are there, his lawyers are bound to insist their statements cannot be included in the hearing.

Even though his accusers’ case would now seem to have gone to pot in a dirty pickle-jar bong, Boucher’s legal team say nothing has changed from their point of view.

“Mark Boucher said up front that all he was interested in was clearing his name, which has been tarnished,” Mohammed Chavoos told The Citizen on Monday.

“He welcomed the opportunity to do that at the hearing and that still remains the case. Our position has never changed.

“It’s up to CSA to deal with their witnesses, they were the ones who embarked on this process. All we want to do is exonerate Mark.

“It’s why labour law is there, the principle of letting the other side be heard, that’s what’s important. Mark has welcomed the chance to clear his name of these allegations,” Chavoos said.

In his statement at the weekend, Adams said he never intended to single out Boucher in the SJN hearings, where he revealed the existence of the “Brown Shit” fines meeting song, but the former Proteas spinner did say the wicketkeeper/batsman “should come and say sorry, if that’s enough” and also targeted Boucher’s appointment as Titans coach in 2016.

“We want to put South African cricket first and take the Proteas back to number one. In my view, Mark Boucher is the best coach for South Africa, that’s where he belongs,” Chavoos added.

Boucher’s disciplinary hearing on charges of racism is scheduled for May 16-20, with senior counsel Terry Motau presiding.

The SJN report has already been partially discredited by former director of cricket Graeme Smith winning his arbitration hearing, with costs, against CSA.

Suspended Cricket South Africa CEO Gerald Majola on Wednesday withdrew from the organisation’s disciplinary hearing against him, rejecting the lawfulness of the proceedings and preferring to go directly to the Labour Court.

Majola is denying allegations of misconduct over bonuses he received without proper clearance and his lawyer, Pumezo David, told Business Day that the entire disciplinary process is illegitimate.

“We feel there are fundamental points that are unfair to Mr Majola in that the establishment of the Nicholson Inquiry by the minister of sport was unlawful and it’s only because of that inquiry that CSA instituted disciplinary proceedings.

“The minister exceeded his powers according to the Sports and Recreation Act. Section 13 (5) does not give him those powers, it’s limited to him referring a matter to mediation or issuing a directive. The hearing therefore emanates from an unlawful act and therefore cannot be fair or legal,” David said on Wednesday.

CSA’s lawyer, Nicholas Preston, said, however, that Majola was merely trying another ruse to cover up the dirty truth.

“He said he wanted a forum to clear his name and now he’s decided to withdraw from it! This process started close on two years ago and he has participated up till now. They’ve sat on this decision for a while and they’re only crying foul now when things are going against him,” Preston said.

Preston said Majola’s withdrawal from the disciplinary hearing would have no effect.

“The law provides for us to proceed without the accused, but the chairman of the hearing [Advocate Karel Tip] made it 100% clear to both parties that he will examine CSA’s evidence and make sure the case is heard properly even without Majola being present. His independence is unquestionable and, in fact, he tested some of our evidence most thoroughly today,” Preston said.

The CSA lawyer said he did not believe Majola’s chances of gaining relief from the Labour Court were very good.

“The Nicholson Inquiry was properly appointed even though Gerald argued against that both at the advisory award and at this hearing. Both John Myburgh [advisory hearing] and now Karel Tip have dismissed that argument,” Preston said.

David said Majola’s withdrawal certainly did not signal a throwing in of the towel by the former CEO.

“We will be laying down our challenge to the Labour Court and obviously they can review and set aside any decision made by the disciplinary hearing,” David said.