The future of the King commission of inquiry into match-fixing and corruption in cricket was clouded in doubt on Monday when Justice Edwin King cancelled the next sitting of the commission scheduled for February 19.

Judge King's surprise move follows statements made by Leslie Sackstein, lawyer for Hansie Cronje, that Judge King's participation in the commission could be unconstitutional. Sackstein's argument seems to be based on a South African Constitutional Court ruling last November that Judge Willem Heath could not head a Special Investigation Unit into irregular arms deals and government corruption.

Although several legal sources have ridiculed this argument, describing it as a "delaying tactic" and pointing out that a Special Investigative Unit is an entirely different animal to a judicial commission of inquiry, Judge King appears to have taken Sackstein's claim seriously.

In a statement issued on Monday, the commission said: "The view of Mr Hansie Cronjé's attorney, Mr Sackstein, that it could be unconstitutional for Judge King to continue to preside over the Commission of Inquiry into Cricket Match Fixing and Related Matters, and that Cronjé's legal team "do not want to be part of something unconstitutional" has been publicly stated.

"Regardless of whether there is any merit in this view, the perception will have been created in the public mind that the proceedings of the Commission under the Chairmanship of Judge King may be unlawful.

"This is an intolerable situation and it would be inappropriate for Judge King to continue the Commission until clarity has been obtained.

"The sitting scheduled for 19 February 2001 will accordingly not take place. The public will be kept informed of further developments.

"Any inconvenience caused is regretted."

Judicial commissions of inquiry are a well-established feature of the South African legal system and in recent years two other major sports, rugby and football have both by the subject of commissions of inquiry. In both cases the commissions of inquiry led to major reshuffles in the administration of the sports.

The persistence with which Cronje and his lawyers have sought to challenge the King commission, after earlier seeming to accept its findings, has also begun to raise questions. At the commissions hearings in June Cronje said he intended to sever all his ties with cricket, but subsequently he has sought to challenge his life ban from the game and now apparently wishes to question the legitimacy of the commission itself.

It is difficult to understand why Cronje has taken this approach, but it should be borne in mind that should the King commission continue with its investigation and Cronje is found to have lied during his evidence, his indemnity from criminal prosecution would fall away. In which case, Cronje could face criminal charges for corruption or perjury or both.

© CricInfo