Two charged over blockading of mine test site in Sakon Nakhon

By PRATCH RUJIVANAROM 
THE NATION 

 

 

TWO LOCAL people have been charged with organising an illegal public gathering in their campaign against potash exploration in Sakon Nakhon.

 

Sakkaphon Charirat, the lawyer for the group opposing potash mining in Sakon Nakhon’s Wanon Niwat district, said yesterday that Sutta Khamnoi and Kitthakorn Noi-saeng have been charged with violating the Public Gatherings Act.

 

He said they had already reported to Wanon Niwat Police Station to listen to the complaint against them, while their protest against potash exploration ended at midday yesterday as per a police deadline issued on Monday.

 

Local people have gathered at the entrance to China Mingda Potash Corporation’s exploration site since last week to protest as the company’s team entered the site. The company, however, has said it has permission from the landowners and local authorities to carry out the exploration work.

 

Sakkaphon said the two locals were sued by police for leading the protest without notifying officers as per the legal requirement. He also said that the Chinese company planned to file more complaints against the protesters on the grounds that they forced a halt to the exploration work and caused damages to the company.

 

“As of now only two persons have been sued for the effort to protect the environment and their hometown. Both of them still have good morale and pledge to defend their rights in the justice system,” he said.

 

China Mingda manager Thanyapat Wangwongsiri said that because of fierce resistance from local people, the company had to postpone its exploration work to avoid further conflict and damages to the company.

 

“We have addressed the situation that we face to a higher chain of command in China and we are waiting for instructions on further operations,” Thanyapat said.

 

“We would like to emphasise that our company is not a private company, but a joint venture between Thai and Chinese authorities, so we have to inform our mother agency in China about the conflict that we have faced.”

 

He said the company’s lawyer was collecting evidence of incidents and was planning further lawsuits against the protesters. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30345475

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-05-16

Due diligence for all parties , communication is the first part of that process.

 

It seems to be the usual practice in Thailand for locals to send out a message they want some of the "action" at the first sniff of any mining or industrial venture coming into their territory. Grasping lawyers are normally the first to see this as an opportunity for themselves and stir the pot accordingly.

1 hour ago, webfact said:

have been charged with violating the Public Gatherings Act.

any doubts we live in a police state ?

2 hours ago, YetAnother said:

any doubts we live in a police state ?

Police State?

 

Take a look at these sections of the law:-

Section 11 - Advance notice of public processions 

requires at least 6 clear days' written notice to be given to the police before most public processions, including details of the intended time and route, and giving the name and address of at least one person proposing to organise it; creates offences for the organisers of a procession if they do not give sufficient notice, or if the procession diverges from the notified time or route.

 

Section 13 - Prohibiting public processions 

Chief Police Officer has the power to ban public processions up to three months by applying to local authority for a banning order which needs subsequent confirmation from the Home Secretary.

 

Section 14 - Imposing conditions on public assemblies 

provides police the power to impose conditions on assemblies "to prevent serious public disorder, serious criminal damage or serious disruption to the life of the community". The conditions are limited to the specifying of:

the number of people who may take part,

the location of the assembly, and

its maximum duration.

 

Whilst I am no supporter of the draconian laws of the Junta, I feel the use of the phrase "Police State" in this instance is pure hyperbole.

 

The above sections of law are from The Public Order Act 1986 of the United Kingdom.

1 hour ago, BigBadGeordie said:

The above sections of law are from The Public Order Act 1986 of the United Kingdom.

How does that contrast with the junta's Public Gatherings Act that was passed by a junta-appointed legislature?

I think you'll find that with regard to the spirit of the law there is no equality between UK and Thailand public assembly laws. Nor is there equality between the judicial systems of Thailand and the UK. The Thai judicial system, especially under a government that rules by absolute power, is a tool for suppression of people's freedom of expression - no matter how legalistic it may appear.