Marlon Samuels' lawyers are all set to challenge his two-year ban © AFP

Marlon Samuels' lawyers, Churchill Neita and Delano Harrison, have indicated that they will press for a judicial review against the two-year ban imposed on the batsman by the West Indies Cricket Board. On May 9, a disciplinary committee deemed that Samuels had breached section C4 of the ICC's Code of Conduct regulations, which involves receiving money, benefit or other reward which could bring him or the game of cricket into disrepute.

"From the outset, we wish to make it pellucidly clear that we propose to challenge the findings of the majority [3 to 1] by way of judicial enquiry, as we believe a most grave injustice has been done by their finding of our client's liability of one of the ICC's disciplinary offences," the lawyers said in a statement issued yesterday.

It was added that the disciplinary committee had found "no basis upon which to find that Mr. Samuels acted dishonestly or in a corrupt manner." They were also "amazed" at the committee's ruling, and considered the reasons given by them to be "flawed and in defiance of logics".

The lawyers raised the following points to make a case for their client:

• "The evidence in the hearing was that the hotel bill paid for our client by Mr Mukesh Kochar was a loan from a friend and father-figure which was to be repaid on Marlon's return to the West Indies."
  
• "The evidence in the hearing was that Mr Mukesh Kochar was not a bookmaker."
  
• "The evidence in the hearing was that Marlon only came to need a loan because money which he had expected to earn from a contract to participate in a television reality show that would have earned him a sum considerably in excess of the hotel bill, did not in fact materialise. Further, his credit card which he had tendered to meet the bill, was declined."

They also pointed out that the aforementioned loan agreement came two weeks after the alleged offence and after the West Indies had completed their tour of India in January 2007, and that the disciplinary committee had "agreed unreservedly" with them that "there has not been proved against Mr Samuels, any element of corruption."

They said the judgement was not an unanimous one, with Aubrey Bishop opposing the final decision made by the four-man committee which also included Richie Richardson, Justice Adrian Saunders, and Lloyd Barnett.

Concluding their statement, the attorneys said: "It is because of the foregoing why we consider that an application for judicial review stands a realistic chance of success and we, therefore, propose to pursue it actively."