Banned Pakistani cricketer Umar Akmal had reportedly refused to give details about his meeting with two suspected bookies to the Pakistan Cricket Board’s (PCB) Independent Disciplinary Panel which handed him a three years ban.

According to a report by PTI, Akmal had a meeting with two unidentified men in the Defence Housing Society in Lahore.

“Umar claims both these gentlemen met him at parties thrown by friends in DHA. But he has refused to even tell the Anti-Corruption officials what was discussed at these meetings,” a reliable source in the Pakistan Cricket Board told PTI.

“Even when the Anti-Corruption officials first presented their report to him on the night between 19th and 20th February in Karachi, Akmal admitted he committed a mistake by not reporting the meetings to them but refrained from giving any details, the source said.

The 29-year-old Umar was banned from all forms of cricket by the Disciplinary Panel for three years for failing to report spot-fixing offers during the Pakistan Super League this year.

The PCB source said Akmal also gave conflicting statements before the Disciplinary Panel hearing on April 27.

“He refused to cooperate with the Disciplinary Panel Judge who advised him to come clean and cooperate with the inquiry,” the source said.

“Umar acted very strange. On One hand, he admits he should have reported the meetings to the PCB but yet refuses to give any details of what was discussed at these meetings.”

Earlier, Chairman of the panel, Justice (retired) Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, in his final report on Umar, had said that the cricketer did not seem willing to remorse and nor did he apologise for failing to report approaches by bookies.

Justice Chauhan in his final report said, “It appears that he (Umar Akmal) is not prepared to show remorse and seek an apology, make admission that he failed to fulfill his responsibility under Anti-Corruption Code, Article 2.4., rather he tried to take refuge under the pretext that in the past whenever any such approaches were made, the matter was reported by him.”

“As far as Charge No.1 is concerned, I do not see any circumstances to mitigate the nature of the offence, particularly when the participant has not cooperated with the PCB Department and the Investigating team,” he said.

With PTI inputs