|
|
|
  |
| AsiaViews, Edition: 48/VI/March2010 |
|
| Judges stand by ruling |
| Judiciary 'surprised' by Thaksin reaction |
The Office of the Judiciary has rejected criticisms of the Supreme Court's decision to order the seizure of 46 billion baht in assets from the Shinawatra family.
Office of the Judiciary spokesman Sitthisak Wanachakij said yesterday the criticism was made by people disappointed with the Feb 26 verdict.
Fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his red shirt supporters in the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship and Puea Thai Party have cried foul over the court ruling, saying it was tainted with a "double standard".
Mr Sitthisak said the Thai judiciary had shown through its 128-year history that it has neither true friends nor permanent enemies. He likened judges from past to present to a relay team, in which each continues what their predecessors did for the good of the country.
Winners and losers emerge from every verdict, he said.
Mr Sitthisak said it was not his duty to defend or explain the court's rulings in Thaksin's assets seizure case.
The nine judges of the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Holders of Political Positions presiding over the case had already spelled out the reasons supporting their decisions, he said.
The full text of the court verdict is expected to be available for download at the Supreme Court's website this week.
The personal judgement of each of the nine judges will be made public at the Supreme Court shortly.
Critics of the rulings argue that it was wrong for the judges to recognise announcements by the military leaders who staged the Sept 19, 2006, coup which toppled Thaksin.
Mr Sitthisak said that in the past when coup-makers seized power, they would have a set of laws drawn up to justify their action.
Legislation issued by the 2006 coup-makers was still in use, he said.
He said the judiciary must enforce the laws drawn up according to due process of law by the legislative branch.
It was wrong to compare the Thaksin assets seizure to the assets seizure case which took place after the Feb 23, 1991, coup which ended the government of the late Chatichai Choonhavan.
Mr Sitthisak said the assets scrutiny committee after the 1991 coup was an all-powerful panel assuming the roles of investigator, prosecutor and the court.
The coup-making National Peace-Keeping Council formed an assets scrutiny committee which seized the assets of 25 politicians and associates.
The committee headed by the late Gen Sitthi Jirarote confiscated assets worth a combined 1.6 billion baht from 10 politicians including Gen Chatichai.
Later, the coup council managed to pass on the confiscation decision to a court. The Supreme Court finally revoked the order, arguing that the assets scrutiny committee applied the court's authority over the case improperly.
However, the Assets Scrutiny Committee appointed in the wake of the 2006 coup was different.
It followed all the proper legal proceedings, such as forwarding its findings to the prosecution for indictment and then to the court for a final decision, Mr Sitthisak said.
He dismissed claims the rulings in the Thaksin case had been pre-determined or arranged in advance.
The judges presiding over the case each wrote their own rulings before preparing a final combined finding.
This was not a "pre-determined or arranged" verdict, Mr Sitthisak said, adding the results of the vote by the judges on each issue would also be announced at the Supreme Court.
Some critics feel the majority ruling reached in the Thaksin assets seizure case showed there was a difference of opinion over the case among the judges and, in light of this, Thaksin should be given the benefit of the doubt.
He said the principle of giving someone the benefit of the doubt applied only to criminal cases, not to assets seizure cases which are civil matters.
Supreme Administrative Court president Ackaratorn Chularat said members of the judiciary were surprised the court rulings were not respected by Thaksin and his red shirt supporters.
Thaksin has threatened to take his case to the International Court of Justice, which would be unprecedented, Mr Ackaratorn said. |
|
|
|
| Bangkok Post, 04 March 2010 |
|
|
Your Letters | 
About Us | 
Contact Us 
