The ICC are entering some murky legal waters as they attempt to re-dredge over the circumstances of the now infamous SCG Test between Australia and Pakistan last January in their bungled attempt to uncover corruption.
The governing body has already conducted an investigation into what happened in that extraordinary match, where Pakistan looked in an unassailable position and somehow, whether that be by conspiracy of incompetence, managed to crash to defeat.
The court of public opinion had already convicted Pakistani keeper Kamran Akmal in the aftermath of that match, but the ICC's investigation in May uncovered no evidence that Akmal, who dropped four catches and missed a run out, or anyone else had conspired to fix the result.
This week, following the airing of more revelations around the spot-fixing controversy uncovered by the News of the World, the ICC have announced they will again conduct an investigation into the SCG Test and it has been suggested that Akmal is under the microscope.
Most judicial systems in the world have a principal of double jeopardy, where a defendant cannot be tried on the same charge if they are acquitted or convicted of that offence. It puts the onus on the prosecution to competently prove their case or not bring it before the court in the first place.
If he has again found himself under investigation, Akmal has not been afforded this right by the ICC Anti-Corruption Unit. That means that even if nobody can ever prove he conspired to alter the result of that match, he will forever have the ICC looking over his shoulder. He can never prove he was innocent.
Ian Healy, Australia's record-breaking keeper, has become an unlikely ally for Akmal. Healy is not known for expressing sympathy for the sake of it, especially when it comes to cricketers from outside of Australia, but his assertion that there is no way Akmal could have deliberately performed that badly in Sydney, speaks volumes.
Only a keeper knows of the difficulties behind the stumps and Healy's take on the situation shows that unless the ICC's ACU gets a direct admission from Akmal or definitive proof of his direct financial benefit, it will never be able to prove, beyond doubt, that the keeper's actions were anything else but incompetent.
The whole circumstances by which this current scandal has arisen are very, very murky. Journalists posing as bookies using secret cameras to elicit admissions from player agents is hardly the way to achieve a clean image for the sport.
While some may say that you need to get down and dirty to catch the dirty, the judicial system of most developed nations would beg to differ. The ends do not justify the means.
While the public mightn't like it, the legal systems we have are there to protect the interests of justice and ensure the competence of and the confidence in the legal process. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.
Much like a certain Pakistani wicket-keeper, if the ICC's anti-corruption system is seen as not being competent then it runs the risk of being accused of being corrupt itself.