An independent arbitrator has dismissed Moghees Ahmed’s appeal against a five-year suspension from all cricket-related activity, leaving intact the original ruling that he made a corrupt approach to an English county head coach.
Ahmed, head of the International Cricketers Association and adviser to several Pakistan internationals, was found in March to have offered the coach a slice of his agent’s commission if selected players on Ahmed’s books were picked for franchise tournaments. The coach reported the conversation on the same day, triggering an investigation by the Cricket Regulator.
A Cricket Discipline Commission (CDC) panel later concluded that the approach breached four clauses of the ECB’s anti-corruption code. Ahmed’s registration as an agent was suspended in August, and he was “declared ineligible” to work in the game for five years from 26 March 2025. Under the sanction, 30 months must be served immediately; the rest is suspended, provided he commits no further offence and completes an anti-corruption education course.
At the time, Ahmed categorically denied wrongdoing and lodged an appeal, arguing that “no reasonable tribunal” could have reached the CDC’s decision and that the panel had misinterpreted the ICC Anti-Corruption Code.
That challenge has now been rejected by arbitrator Raj Parker, who concluded the original panel reached its verdict “after careful examination of the evidence and an assessment of the credibility of the complainant and Mr Ahmed”.
Reacting to the outcome, Chris Haward, managing director of the Cricket Regulator, said: “We welcome the decision of the Sole Arbitrator dismissing the appeal and upholding the decision of the CDC. The decision of the Arbitrator reinforces the position that the actions of Mr Ahmed can correctly be described as corrupt conduct. The Cricket Regulator will ensure that where there is corrupt conduct suspected it will be investigated and those responsible held to account.”
The ruling serves as another reminder that the authorities intend to scrutinise off-field dealings as closely as on-field actions, a stance broadly supported by players, coaches and administrators who value transparency—or, at the very least, want clear lines they know not to cross.
