EDITORIAL
The absence of an update so far this week from the country's highest court on what has been called the "snack box saga" is beginning to get a little uncomfortable. The Supreme Court appointed on Friday morning three of its membership - vice president Mongkol Taptiang and judges Weerapol Tangsuwan and Issares Chairat - to look into what appears on the surface to be a blatant attempt at bribing the court.
It is important that the investigation be unhurried and thorough, and a full report should not be expected so soon. It is imperative, however, that the Court release details of its investigation in a timely manner to reassure the public that it is being handled properly and with the necessary urgency.
This is a special case, in the first place simply because of its outrageous nature, and secondly and most importantly, because it threatens to rock the reputation of the highest court at a time when its credibility is needed most. Openness and transparency are called for from the institution at every step of the way in its investigation into the matter.
For those unfamiliar with the case, what is known to the general public is that on June 10 a person believed to be a lawyer left a box resembling a snack package with a court official at the Supreme Court. After the person who dropped off the box left, the court official, following security procedures, opened the box and found two million baht in cash stuffed inside. The official alerted the judge handling the case in which the lawyer is involved. Reportedly, the judge then called up some witnesses, took photos of the box and cash then made a phone call to the person who dropped off the box, who then came to the court building and retrieved the box with the money still inside.
All of this reportedly took place before Supreme Court president Wirat Limwichai became aware of any of the details. Upon hearing of the incident, Judge Wirat ordered an investigation, resulting in the formation of the three-judge panel, which has been instructed to find out who left the box, for whom, why the box was quickly returned and not kept as evidence, and to determine if attempted bribery charges should be filed.
Apart from the description of what happened, little official information has been available to the public so far. There are reports that several witnesses as well as footage from a closed-circuit television camera (the existence of which has not been confirmed by the court) implicate two lawyers handling the case for Thaksin Shinawatra, one of them known to be well-connected to Yongyuth Tiyapairat, deputy leader of the ruling People Power party. Both lawyers have reportedly denied any knowledge of the event.
At first glance it looks as though the incident may be an attempt to taint the judicial system's reputation. It seems highly unlikely that Mr Thaksin's lawyers would just drop off the money at the court office without knowing what the judge's reaction would be. It is even more unlikely that, if the judge were in fact agreeable to a bribe, he would arrange for it to be delivered through a third person at his place of work, especially knowing about the required security procedures. Yet it is most perplexing that the money was returned and not kept as evidence, apparently at the judge's instruction.
It should not be too long before a positive identification of the person or persons who dropped off the money is made, and this should be made known to the public immediately. It is essential that the Supreme Court and the judicial branch be seen as being above politics and corruption.
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Next
