Saliya Saman’s ban depicts Sri Lanka’s continuing struggle with corruption
Corruption in cricket continues to haunt Sri Lanka after the International Cricket Council (ICC), acting on behalf of the Emirates Cricket Board (ECB), declared veteran domestic player Saliya Saman guilty of attempting to lure a fellow cricketer into corrupt conduct during the Abu Dhabi T10 League.A three-member Anti-Corruption Tribunal, headed by Harish Salve KC and including HHJ Nigel Peters KC and Justice Zak Yacoob, returned a damning verdict earlier this month, finding Saman guilty on multiple counts of breaching the ECB’s Anti-Corruption Code. The tribunal imposed a five-year ban, effectively ending Saman’s involvement in professional cricket and adding yet another name to Sri Lanka’s list of disgraced players.
The case revolved around an approach of a player by Saman with the promise of financial or contractual reward, in exchange for influence over the outcome of matches. According to evidence accepted by the tribunal, Saman attempted to persuade another cricketer, referred to in proceedings as Player ‘A’, to “play as instructed” in two matches of the T10 competition in late December 2020. In return, he offered to secure Player ‘A’, a lucrative contract in the league. Player ‘A’, an experienced international, rejected the proposal outright and immediately reported the matter to the ICC’s Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU)—a decision that ultimately exposed Saman’s conduct.
The tribunal’s findings rested heavily on Player A’s testimony, which was described as consistent, detailed and credible. In his initial interview with the ACU, conducted with the assistance of his wife as translator, Player ‘A’ described how Saman first contacted him via Facebook, later moving the conversation to WhatsApp. During one of these exchanges, Saman allegedly made it clear that Player ‘A’ would be signed for the T10 League, but only on the condition that he agreed to manipulate aspects of two matches.
“He told me there was something I had to do in two games,” Player ‘A’ testified.
“It was obvious to me this was fixing, and I told him straight away I was not interested.”
Saman, represented by counsel from Justitia Chambers, denied all wrongdoing. He initially told investigators that he had merely contacted Player ‘A’ to congratulate him on his marriage and to discuss cricket opportunities abroad. Later, in a revised witness statement, he claimed he had reached out to Player ‘A’ at the request of a former Sri Lankan player, identified only as Mr. X, who has himself been under scrutiny for corruption. Mr. X currently facing charges in courts for a separate case in match-fixing.
According to Saman, he was nothing more than a messenger, passing on Mr. X’s wishes. But the tribunal found this explanation to be riddled with contradictions, and pointed out that Saman had not mentioned Mr. X at all in his first interview, raising doubts about the credibility of his shifting story.
“The inconsistencies in Mr. Saman’s account were glaring,” the tribunal observed in its written findings. “By contrast, Player A’s testimony remained clear, consistent and supported by documentary evidence in the form of messages. We are satisfied that Mr. Saman attempted to induce Player ‘A’ to engage in corrupt conduct, regardless of whether he acted alone or on behalf of another.”
The panel also stressed that under anti-corruption regulations, an attempt is as grave as a successful fix. “It is the approach itself that damages the game, for it seeks to erode trust among players and between the sport and its supporters,” the ruling noted.
Arguments on sanction revealed the gravity of the offence. ICC Senior Legal Counsel Sally Clark pressed for a significant ban, citing both the seriousness of the conduct and the precedents established in earlier cases involving Sri Lankan players Nuwan Zoysa and Dilhara Lokuhettige. The ICC pointed to aggravating factors such as the potential damage to the commercial and sporting credibility of the Abu Dhabi T10, the vulnerability of short-format games to manipulation, and the attempt to corrupt a fellow player.
“The short nature of the T10 format means that even a single delivery can alter the outcome. This magnifies the danger of such approaches,” Clark argued.
Saman’s defence team, however, urged leniency. They emphasised his previously clean disciplinary record, the fact that he had gained nothing financially from the incident, and that Player ‘A’ had not even been selected for the T10 League at the time of the approach.
“This was at most a speculative conversation that went nowhere,” his lawyer argued, adding that Saman had co-operated with investigators and was ‘saddened’ by the ordeal.
Yet the tribunal was unconvinced. It concluded that Saman’s approach posed a direct threat to the integrity of the competition and that his denials lacked credibility. As a result, he was banned for five years, a sanction that, while short of a lifetime ban, effectively marks the end of his professional career given his age. The ruling was unambiguous.
“The protection of cricket requires strong sanctions, not merely to punish but to deter others who might be tempted by such corrupt approaches.”
For Sri Lanka, the timing of the verdict is particularly painful. The country is still recovering from reputational wounds inflicted by the cases of Zoysa and Lokuhettige, both of whom received lengthy bans for similar offences. Each new scandal not only undermines faith in Sri Lankan cricket but also reinforces the perception that the island remains vulnerable to corruption, despite repeated warnings and educational programmes run by the ICC’s ACU. Saman, 39, who schooled at Revata College, Balapitiya had played 101 first classes matches, 77 List ‘A’ and 47 T20 domestic games during his career and represented Sri Lanka at Under-17 and Under-19 levels.