Judge Lobbied In Pm's Assets Case

[george]

Judge `lobbied' in PM's assets case

BANGKOK: -- The libel case against Prime Minster Thaksin Shinawatra takes on a new twist as a witness reveals information that could be a political bombshell for the prime minister

A witness in a libel case where eight Constitution Court judges are plaintiffs has revealed sensitive information that could be a political bombshell for Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

The witness, testifying for government critic Prasong Soonsiri, said Mr Thaksin was cleared of the assets concealment allegation against him only because judges had been lobbied to consider the political rather than the legal aspects of the case.

The eight plaintiff judges all cleared the prime minister in August 2001 of charges he intended to hide his huge shareholdings under other people's names.

They subsequently sued Sqn-Ldr Prasong and Naew Na newspaper in the Criminal Court on Aug 16, 2002, for libel after he questioned their integrity in that highly-publicised case.

Mr Thaksin narrowly won by a vote of 8 to 7 and escaped a five-year ban from holding political office.

Defence witness Wasant Soipisut, president of Court of Appeals Region 7, told the court yesterday that before the Constitution Court handed down its verdict in the Thaksin case one of the eight judges, Jumpol na Songkhla, asked him if he could rule the prime minister innocent on the grounds that he had not breached article 295 of the constitution.

Mr Wasant, then a Supreme Court judge, said he then asked Mr Jumpol, a former Supreme Court judge, if he had already decided tooom (to keep from falling) Mr Thaksin.

``He replied that 11 million people voted Mr Thaksin into office so how could he let only a few people [15 Constitution Court judges] lose him the prime ministership,'' Mr Wasant said.

He said he reminded Mr Jumpol that a judge was duty-bound to punish anyone who broke the law regardless of who that person was. He finally suggested Mr Jumpol base his ``not-guilty'' decision on the facts and not on legal argument.

Mr Wasant said he met Mr Jumpol again after the verdict was delivered and asked why the judge cleared Mr Thaksin on the grounds he had not violated article 295 of the charter, under which political office holders found to have intentionally tried to conceal their assets should be barred from political office for five years.

Mr Jumpol, he said, told him he could not base the decision on fact because that might contradict an article in Who's Who in Thailand which stated that a number of people close to Mr Thaksin held a huge volume of shares in the prime minister's family businesses.

That ``fact'' in that publication had been used by Klanarong Chanthik, then secretary-general of the National Commission to Counter Corruption, as supporting evidence to the Constitution Court that Mr Thaksin had hidden his wealth.

Mr Wasant said he told Pundit Siripan, who used to work with him at a law firm, and Supreme Court chief justice Kampol Pusuksawaeng, about his conversations with Mr Jumpol.

Mr Pundit is the lawyer for Sqn-Ldr Prasong in this libel case.

Besides Mr Jumpol, the seven other judges who found Mr Thaksin not guilty are Kramol Thongthammachart, Pan Chantarapan, Sak Techacharn, Preecha Chalermwanich, Lt-Gen Jul Atirek, Anand Ketwong and Suchinda Yongsunthorn. Only Mr Jumpol and Mr Preecha have testified in the court.

Mr Jumpol, in an interview yesterday, accused Mr Wasant, his best friend, of betraying him by telling Mr Pundit his ``secrets'', saying: ``That was a severe breach of judicial ethics.''

He said he just dropped by Mr Wasant's office at the Supreme Court that day and had no intention whatsoever of seeking his advice on the Thaksin case.

Mr Wasant, he said, told him he should say Mr Thaksin did not intend to hide his assets, but he disagreed.

``I based my decision on democratic and political science principles. I said Mr Thaksin was not in the wrong because I saw that as many as 11 million people had given him a political mandate.

``Had we ruled Mr Thaksin guilty that day, do you know what would have happened? Had we said he had to go, I think the court would have been set on fire that day,'' Mr Jumpol said.

The judge also said one reason Mr Thaksin could survive was that article 295 of the charter was poorly written and therefore had loopholes in it.

--Agencies 2004-10-15

[ovenman]

Is anybody really surprised by these allegations?

As much as I don't care for Mr.Big, at the time the verdict was rendered I really did not want to see him found guilty and subsequently become a martyr of sorts during his court-imposed five year political exile.

[sriracha john]

The scandal doesn't end there. Although a judge deciding in Thaksin's favor in order to avoid some self-perceived "trouble in the land" is bad enough, the following is even more troubling as it involves outright bribery:

from the "The Nation":

Prime minister and sister Yaowapha accused of offering promotion for judge’s son in exchange for a not-guilty vote

The Constitution Court plunged into a major crisis yesterday following claims that some of its "majority" judges, who acquitted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra of charges of concealing his assets in 2001, had been promised favours by him and his sister Yaowapha Wongsawat in exchange for finding the PM not guilty.

Judge Ura Wang-omklang was visited by Thaksin and Yaowapha before the assets-case verdict and told that in exchange for an acquittal vote, his son, who was working at the Foreign Ministry, could choose to work as ambassadorial secretary in any country of his choice.

[Felt 35]

Is anybody really surprised by these allegations?

Sure it is, but it should not surprise anyone, which not are born yesterday.

[Darth Bangkok]

The scandal doesn't end there. Although a judge deciding in Thaksin's favor in order to avoid some self-perceived "trouble in the land" is bad enough, the following is even more troubling as it involves outright bribery:

from the "The Nation":

Prime minister and sister Yaowapha accused of offering promotion for judge’s son in exchange for a not-guilty vote

The Constitution Court plunged into a major crisis yesterday following claims that some of its "majority" judges, who acquitted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra of charges of concealing his assets in 2001, had been promised favours by him and his sister Yaowapha Wongsawat in exchange for finding the PM not guilty.

Judge Ura Wang-omklang was visited by Thaksin and Yaowapha before the assets-case verdict and told that in exchange for an acquittal vote, his son, who was working at the Foreign Ministry, could choose to work as ambassadorial secretary in any country of his choice.

I read that too. I was wondering if the son got an embassy job and where. I didn't notice it written anywhere, but I didn't read every article about it.

[sriracha john]

The scandal doesn't end there. Although a judge deciding in Thaksin's favor in order to avoid some self-perceived "trouble in the land" is bad enough, the following is even more troubling as it involves outright bribery:

from the "The Nation":

Prime minister and sister Yaowapha accused of offering promotion for judge’s son in exchange for a not-guilty vote

The Constitution Court plunged into a major crisis yesterday following claims that some of its "majority" judges, who acquitted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra of charges of concealing his assets in 2001, had been promised favours by him and his sister Yaowapha Wongsawat in exchange for finding the PM not guilty.

Judge Ura Wang-omklang was visited by Thaksin and Yaowapha before the assets-case verdict and told that in exchange for an acquittal vote, his son, who was working at the Foreign Ministry, could choose to work as ambassadorial secretary in any country of his choice.

I read that too. I was wondering if the son got an embassy job and where. I didn't notice it written anywhere, but I didn't read every article about it.

I believe the judge involved was one of the 7 who voted against Thaksin in the end, so didn't take the bribe..... and thusly, I dare say his son didn't get the "promotion."

btw, it's still ILLEGAL to offer a bribe in Thailand, whether it's accepted or not.