A New Chapter of Silence in Pakistan Cricket: The Story Behind Rizwan and Imam's President's Trophy Permission

On Monday morning inside Lahore's cricket circle, the news that spread before the sixth round began was not a scorecard item. The news was that Mohammad Rizwan would play for Sui Northern Gas Pipelines, and Imam-ul-Haq for OGDCL. Behind this decision there is no formal statement, no written permission, no press conference. The PCB itself issued nothing. Two of the most recognizable faces in the national side had their return announced by coach Mohammad Hafeez on electronic media, while Imam's employer announced in writing that he was returning. That silence is the real story. In all my years of watching Pakistan cricket, when a decision is taken quietly, there is usually a quieter equation behind it.

The context matters. The President's Trophy Grade-I is Pakistan's premier domestic first-class competition, four-day red-ball cricket, eight teams, underway since last month. Letting two international players appear in Round 6 does not mean all suspicion has been cleared. Recall that before the third and final Test of the England tour, Rizwan, Imam-ul-Haq and five other squad members were sent home. Sending seven players back mid-series is not done on mere suspicion; there is a high-level risk assessment behind it. Before that third Test their phones were seized, the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency opened an inquiry under PECA, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act. Rizwan was summoned to Lahore on October 2 and questioned for over three hours. No charge sheet followed. Nor did any full clearance. The permission for Round 6 sits in that empty middle space.

What I see is that the PCB has created an unwritten three-tier system. First tier, full suspension. Second tier, domestic-only permission. Third tier, full clearance. The middle tier exists in no regulation, was announced at no press conference, but it is operating in reality. Rizwan sought an NOC for the Nepal Premier League, the PCB refused, allowing only domestic cricket. That distinction is crucial. Going to a foreign league puts a player outside the board's supervision, outside the reach of the domestic investigating agency, and opens up foreign media scrutiny the board cannot control. Playing domestic cricket keeps him inside both. So this is not about punishment, it is about control. And an internal inconsistency stands out. Rizwan is permitted to play a match, but not permitted to use the National Cricket Academy in Lahore to prepare. That inconsistency suggests the restriction's basis is probably not physical risk but relationship, or an internal discipline question.

The real problem is not the standard of play, it is procedural transparency. During the 2026 spot-fixing scandal, the ICC imposed provisional suspensions on Salman Butt, Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir immediately, before the criminal proceedings concluded. The sequence there is not in dispute. But this time the sequence is inverted. First phones seized, then withdrawal from a Test series, then a return to domestic cricket, with no formal suspension and no formal clearance. If one does not treat this silence as presumption of innocence, one can read it as legally advised silence. Public comment during an inquiry could prejudice it, or expose the board to defamation or employment claims from the players. So silence may be the product of counsel rather than fear. But that silence is creating a procedural gap that cannot be denied. A player cannot appeal a permission that was never formally granted.

The least discussed dimension is the other five. Seven were sent home, two have partially returned, five have no stated status anywhere. Are they still under inquiry? Or was nothing found against them? The answer is nowhere. Pakistan's domestic cricket structure has a distinctive feature: departmental teams, state-owned enterprises. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines and OGDCL are companies that employ cricketers and field teams. This system gives players income security, but also offers leverage. Removing someone from a company job is far easier for a board than announcing a formal national-team ban. Yet OGDCL announced in writing that Imam was returning, effectively disclosing the board's decision ahead of time. The employer's statement came before the board's, and the coach's comment came before that. The order itself is a message.

What I do not want to say is that I see this purely as procedural failure. Keeping a person from their profession while an inquiry proceeds is not inherently unjust. Many jurisdictions allow work while allegations are pending, because until adjudication there is only an allegation. From that angle, if the PCB decision is flawed, the flaw lies in its obscurity, not its substance. There is no written policy, no timeline, and no explanation for why the return comes in Round 6 rather than Round 1. If there had been a formal rule, this would have been the occasion to make it. But in the absence of a rule, any future decision will travel the same path, and the media will not know. I also have a question about Rizwan's readiness as a player. He failed to appear at a pre-season fitness test, and was not allowed to prepare at the national academy. To then walk out as wicket-keeper-batter in a four-day match starting Monday carries a physical risk that is not small. Nobody has measured that risk, because no document records it.

Now the question is what comes next. After seven players were removed, the domestic argument is convenient: the 3-0 loss was caused by those withdrawals. That argument is not wholly false, but not wholly true either, because the third Test was already trending badly before the changes. The question is: if NCCIA files charges later, what becomes of this silence? Probably the ICC's anti-corruption unit is quietly watching too, though there is no evidence of it. Perhaps the inquiry will run on, the players will stay inside this unwritten domestic boundary, and the board will stay silent. Or the inquiry will close, and this decision will be presented as proportionate. One thing can already be said with certainty: the Test futures of both players will depend not on form but on a legal outcome. A century in Round 6 will not answer that uncertainty.

I have watched cricket for many years, and when boards refuse to make statements, it usually means either they do not know what will happen, or they have reasons for their decision that they themselves do not wish to publish. Which of the two this is will become clear over the next few months. For now, keep watching the five, not the players on the field.