No confidence in Faruque: They too can be accused of ‘copy-paste’ allegations

Eight directors of the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) submitted a no-confidence letter to the sports adviser, bringing multiple charges against board president Faruque Ahmed. Within hours, and without giving him a chance to defend himself, the National Sports Council (NSC) cancelled its nomination for Faruque as a BCB director.

The letter, the subsequently disclosed investigation report of the Bangladesh Premier League (BPL), and the removal order — all appeared to be the part of a pre-written script.

On the night before these developments, Faruque was told by the sports adviser that the “higher authority” no longer wants him to continue as the BCB president. When Faruque asked for a reason, none was given. Later, he informed the media yesterday that he would not resign unless he received a proper explanation.

Within hours, the no-confidence letter signed by eight BCB directors spread on media and social media platforms. Almost simultaneously, the BPL investigation report — which blamed Faruque solely despite multiple parties being involved — was published. Later, the NSC revoked its nomination to Faruque as a BCB director.

It seems all the guns were already aimed. If Faruque had quietly stepped down, this chain reaction may not have taken place. But he chose to stay, inviting the attacks one after another. In the onesided-game, he was removed, without getting a chance to defend himself.

As an NSC-nominated director, it would have been proper protocol for the NSC to talk to Faruque first if they had concerns. But it did not happen, thanks to an invisible control over the developments.

Faruque has rejected the allegations mentioned in the no-confidence letter, calling them “copy-paste” allegations. It means he is being accused of the same wrongdoings allegedly committed over the past 12 years by the very directors who signed the letter. If so, such a no-confidence motion can be brought against the directors as well!

Let’s take a closer look at the claims made in the no-confidence letter.

Those who know Faruque Ahmed describe him as a man of strong personality and clear words. In professional spaces, he sometimes behaves strictly. This strict nature might be the basis for the allegation of being arbitrary and authoritarian.

But is Faruque more ‘arbitrary and authoritarian’ than Nazmul Hassan was during his tenure as BCB president under the Awami League regime? Arbitrary, authoritarian – these were more suitable with Nazmul Hassan. Even the directors who signed this no-confidence letter used to talk about Nazmul’s authoritative behaviour and suppression of dissent on different occasions. Yet, they never filed a no-confidence motion against him. Rather, they extended consent to each and every decision made by him.

Corruption and irregularities were widespread during the previous board, with lower-level cricket hit hard by match-fixing and umpiring bias. Did any of these directors raise their voices then? No.

During the tenure of Nazmul Hassan, two signatories of the no-confidence letter were directly in charge of CCDM, which is familiar due to the underhand politics of club cricket. Under their leadership, did the CCDM take any effective action against match fixing and biased umpiring? In contrast, their clubs, and those of some other influential signatories of the no-confidence letter, took advantage of the practice.

In 2018, former BCB director Ismail Haider Mallick admitted in an interview that all 56 clubs of domestic cricket were under the same umbrella, and used to take advantage of match-fixing and biased umpiring. Some of the no-confidence letter signatories were linked to those clubs, and they took benefits from the widespread corruption in domestic cricket.

None of them refuted Mallick’s statement. They indulged in unjust activities, in the interest of their own clubs. Even the person who served as the head of the umpires committee during the peak of biased umpiring is also among the signatories of the no-confidence letter.

The letter accused Faruque of taking as long as five months to restructure BCB committees and of making decisions unilaterally while preventing others from performing properly.

But do the directors know that Faruque Ahmed has direction from higher authorities to limit activities of some directors, as they were allies of the ‘fascists’ in the previous board. This is why, in the initial days, he ran the board with only one or two directors.

Some of the directors who signed the letter had close ties with the previous regime, and benefitted from them. One was even the convener of the Sheikh Hasina International Stadium project committee.

Faruque scrapped the project due to its excessive cost. Initially budgeted at Tk 9 billion, the project’s estimated cost ballooned to Tk 15 billion even before construction began. A suspicious Tk 760 million consultancy contract was signed with an Australian company. The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) is currently investigating the matter.

The convener of the stadium project also got the tender of installing floodlights at the national stadium (current name), due to his close ties with former BCB president and sports minister Nazmul Hasan.

From the beginning, Faruque was instructed to keep some directors, including the stadium committee convener, to keep away from board operations. For the same reason, many officials and employees recruited by the previous board were kept inactive. All these inevitably slowed down the board’s activities and forced the BCB president to make many decisions independently.

Now, the NSC has revoked Faruque Ahmed’s nomination, due to the no-confidence letter filed by the controversial directors.

Faruque Ahmed removed former head coach Chandika Hathurusingha on his own decision. It’s true that Faruque had personal issues with the Sri Lankan coach — he had stepped down from the selection panel earlier due to interference by Hathurusingha and the BCB president.

But at the time of Hathurusingha’s removal, did any of the board directors protest? In fact, some of them criticised the coach strongly in talk-shows and newspaper columns. The other directors castigated him in the board meeting. A former national cricketer, who became influential in the present context, also took a position against the coach.

By raising the issue now in the letter, these directors have only reminded the public that Faruque once gave up the post of chief selector protesting undue interference by board president Nazmul Hassan in 2016 — something none of them dared to do. Despite being on the same board, they did not even protest against any unjust.

The no-confidence letter, in another way, acknowledges that Bangladesh cricket was better during the tenure of former BCB president Nazmul Hassan. Why? Because the signatories themselves wrote that during the past years (under the Awami League regime), the Bangladesh team played exceptionally well and rose to sixth or seventh in the ICC rankings. Now, they claim the national team’s performance is on the downward trend due to Faruque’s “arbitrary conduct and undue interference in the cricket operations department,” which they allege has pushed Bangladesh to 10th in the rankings.

It's hard to fathom that such a bizarre and unsuitable argument was supported by someone considered an experienced figure in the country's cricket — the very person who now heads the BCB’s cricket operations department. When a national team underperforms, responsibility should first go to the coach and players — but right after them, it should fall on the operations chief.

If his department has truly been subjected to “undue interference” by the president, has he ever protested that? Is it fair for him to claim that it's the BCB president alone who’s responsible for the team’s poor performance?

It’s not just Bangladesh — global cricket media are aware of interference by former president Nazmul Hassan in team affairs. Despite being a former cricketer, Faruque Ahmed, by contrast, has barely involved himself in national team matters. Anyone speaking to national team players would know this.

Yet, those who once supported Nazmul in his excessive interference in the team are now making funny allegations against Faruque Ahmed.

The no-confidence letter noted that the main intention behind Faruque Ahmed’s appointment was to amend the board’s constitution and to prepare a white paper documenting the corruption and irregularities that occurred during the previous government’s term. Faruque Ahmed was on the due course, but it was the very directors who signed the no-confidence letter that did not let him advance.

In a board meeting chaired by Faruque, Nazmul Abedin was entrusted with the responsibility for drafting the amendment. He did prepare a draft for a time-befitting constitution. But everyone knows why the draft is not being approved, and that is club politics.

As the draft recommended a reduction in the power of clubs within the BCB, the clubs in Dhaka demanded Nazmul Abedin’s resignation. Ironically, some of those club leaders are the same people who signed the no-confidence motion and are now questioning why Faruque failed to deliver an amended constitution.

The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has already begun investigating the corruption and irregularities of the previous BCB board. As president, Faruque Ahmed instructed all relevant officials to fully cooperate with ACC investigators, and this cooperation has continued. ACC officials have visited the BCB office three times to collect documents and data. There has been no claim or complaint from the ACC that Faruque hindered their work in any way.

However, sources said a board director — who was also on the previous board and is now a signatory of the no-confidence letter — unnecessarily roams around the ACC team during their visits and even sits beside them on occasion. Learning about the issue, Faruque Ahmed advised him not to stay there so that the ACC can carry out its work independently and without undue influence.

The no-confidence letter also placed the blame for all BPL-related irregularities solely on Faruque Ahmed, when the responsibility also falls on other members, including the member secretary of the BPL governing council.

The letter alleged that Faruque bypassed BCB’s listed vendors to favor a low-quality, unregistered event management company of his choosing. But what was the real motive behind this allegation?

This deserves careful scrutiny. Most of the companies currently listed as BCB vendors were registered under the previous board. Are the eight directors confirmed that those vendors were listed in full compliance with rules? Can they confirm that the previous board always followed proper procedures when awarding contracts?

If there are issues with the new company that Faruque favoured, they could have named it clearly in the letter. Doing so might even make the ACC’s job easier!

Faruque Ahmed may have flaws as BCB president. He may have committed errors, or even shown favouritism. But should he be removed immediately, just because someone has made allegations? Such accusations should first be investigated. Faruque must be allowed the opportunity to defend himself.

When none of the formalities are followed, and yet his nomination as a BCB director is suddenly revoked, it becomes obvious that the “copy-paste” allegations were just part of a pre-written script. The real question is — who wrote that script?