Lahore High Court dismisses Mohammad Rizwan's petition against NCCIA

Lahore High Court has dismissed Mohammad Rizwan’s petition against Pakistan’s national cybercrimes agency, the National Cyber Crimes Investigation Agency. The court held a hearing on Thursday and directed the wicketkeeper to respond to the questionnaire sent to him by the NCCIA.

Rizwan had filed a writ petition on Wednesday, arguing that the agency did not have the jurisdiction to question him “purportedly in respect of online betting/gambling in the sport of Pakistan cricket”.

His legal challenge came after he and teammate Imam ul Haq were summoned to the NCCIA office for questioning. Both players were given a questionnaire to complete. Imam submitted his responses, while Rizwan chose to contest the inquiry through legal means.

“… the ICC ACU is the body specifically constituted and mandated to receive, investigate and act upon allegations of corruption, including betting and spot fixing, against players participating in international cricket, including the Petitioner,” the petition stated, as reported by Cricinfo. “No reference of the alleged conduct has been made to the ACU. In the absence of any independent, specific offence… the NCCIA’s assumption of jurisdiction is without lawful basis and amounts to an abuse of process.”

The petition also made serious claims, including the confiscation of Rizwan’s phone in the lobby of the team hotel during the Lord’s Test.

It stated that the 34-year-old was “summoned to the lobby of the hotel where the entire team was staying, at 01:00 AM in the night”.

“There, an officer purportedly from some government agency was present. Despite no notice with respect to the foregoing, the Petitioner was interrogated by the said officer and his mobile phone was confiscated from him without providing him with any reason or justification. He was also not informed of any order which authorized the confiscation of his phone.”

Rizwan submitted his phone “on the assurance that the device would be thoroughly checked and returned back to him within the next 3 hours”, but “despite the assurance, the phone has not been handed back to him till date”.