Bangladesh appeal can't be heard by ICC's DRC; Scotland to be named as replacement by January 24

By Admin

24 Jan, 2026

Introduction
A last-ditch legal move by the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB) to challenge the International Cricket Council’s (ICC) decision on the venue of Bangladesh’s T20 World Cup matches has hit a dead end. The ICC’s Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) does not have the authority to hear appeals against decisions taken by the ICC Board of Directors, effectively closing the door on Bangladesh’s plea. With this, Scotland remains on stand-by and is expected to be formally named as the replacement by January 24, 2026.

Background to the dispute
The issue began after Bangladesh’s interim government, supported by Sports Ministry advisor Asif Nazrul, announced that the national men’s team would not travel to India for the T20 World Cup, citing security concerns. This stance followed the removal of senior pacer Mustafizur Rahaman from the Kolkata Knight Riders squad, allegedly on the Board of Control for Cricket in India’s diktat.

Despite these concerns, the ICC Board of Directors conducted an independent security assessment, which categorized the threat level as “low to moderate.” Following this assessment, the board voted emphatically 14–2 in favour of hosting Bangladesh’s matches in India.

BCB’s approach to the DRC
After being completely cornered, the BCB under its president Aminul Islam Bulbul decided to exhaust its final internal option by approaching the ICC’s Dispute Resolution Committee. The DRC is chaired by English lawyer Michael Beloff, a King’s Counsel, and operates strictly under British law.

“Yes, BCB has approached the DRC of ICC as it wants to exhaust all its options. If DRC rules against BCB, then the only body that can be approached is the Court of Arbitration of Sports (CAS) in Switzerland,” a BCB source told PTI on condition of anonymity.

However, the move was always unlikely to succeed.

Why the appeal cannot be heard
A close reading of the ICC Constitution and the Terms of Reference for the DRC makes it clear that the committee is not an appellate body. Clause 1.3 of the Terms of Reference explicitly states that the DRC shall not operate as an appeal body against decisions of the ICC or any decision-making body established under the ICC’s Memorandum and Articles of Association.

An ICC board source confirmed this position, stating that while Bangladesh is free to approach the DRC, the committee does not have the remit to hear an appeal against a decision taken by the ICC Board of Directors. The DRC’s role is limited to examining whether the ICC Board followed its own rules and procedures, not to overturn its decisions.

ICC’s internal reaction and timeline
It is understood that ICC chairman Jay Shah, who was in Namibia for the Under-19 World Cup, is now in Dubai. A formal announcement regarding Bangladesh’s replacement is expected by Saturday, January 24, 2026.

Sources within the ICC have also expressed strong displeasure with the handling of the situation by the BCB leadership. According to an ICC board member, the board was particularly upset that a press conference was held before formally informing the global body of the decision. While Asif Nazrul is described as a persona non grata within the ICC, questions have also been raised about Aminul Islam Bulbul’s role in allowing the situation to escalate publicly.

Past precedents and DRC’s functioning
The DRC’s history further underlines why Bangladesh’s appeal is unlikely to proceed. One of its most notable verdicts came in 2018, when it summarily rejected the Pakistan Cricket Board’s claim of USD 70 million in compensation against the BCCI. The DRC ruled that what the PCB described as a Memorandum of Understanding was merely a letter of intent and not legally binding.

This precedent highlights the DRC’s narrow legal focus. It checks procedural compliance rather than revisiting or overturning policy decisions taken by the ICC Board.

Composition of the DRC
The 11-member Dispute Resolution Committee includes several eminent legal and governance figures. Apart from Michael Beloff, the panel comprises Mike Heron (King’s Counsel), Justice Winston Anderson, independent lawyers such as Deon van Zyl, Gary Roberts, Guo Cai, EAP Anabelle Bennett, Jean Paulsson, and Peter Nicholson, along with Vijay Malhotra and Sally Clark.

Conclusion
With the DRC lacking the authority to hear Bangladesh’s appeal, the path within the ICC framework appears closed. The only remaining legal option for the BCB would be to approach the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland, a move that would further escalate the dispute. Meanwhile, the ICC is set to move ahead with contingency plans, with Scotland poised to be named as Bangladesh’s replacement by January 24, bringing clarity to a situation that has stirred significant administrative and political controversy within international cricket.