Knife-edge 8-7 verdict keeps Thaksin in office

No evidence he knew of share transfers

Post Reporters

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's worst nightmare failed to materialise when the Constitutional Court found him not guilty of hiding his assets by an 8-7 vote yesterday.

As the result was read by court president Prasert Nasakul, joy replaced anxiety and supporters outside the court drank toasts in celebration.

Mr Thaksin would have lost his job had the court ruled he had intentionally not reported shares worth billions of baht held by servants and relatives, to the National Counter Corruption Commission.

The eight judges who decided in his favour were Kramol Thongthammachart, Jumpol na Songkhla, Jul Atirek, Preecha Chalermvanich, Pan Chantarapan, Suchinda Yongsunthorn, Anand Ketwong and Sak Techacharn.

The seven who ruled against were Mr Prasert, Mongkol Saradan, Sujit Boonbongkarn, Suvit Theerapong, Amorn Raksasat, Issara Nitithanprapas and Ura Wang-omklang.

The court statement said: "The graft agency had no evidence to prove beyond doubt that at the time the assets were declared, Mr Thaksin knew about the share transfers by his wife."A court source said two judges in the majority had made a last-minute change at the request of a person who has considerable clout, just one day before the court cast its formal vote.

"I was forced to swallow my blood while writing this," the source quoted one of the judges as saying.

"We are sorry if our verdict disappoints you," Mr Prasert said. "We don't mean to fail you. We just have to do our duty."Mr Prasert refused to give details of court deliberations that led to the verdict. It transpires, however, that Article 295 of the constitution, which governed declarations of assets and debts by political office holders, was interpreted by judges in both a helpful and harmful way to Mr Thaksin.

The source said the court was having problems writing the central ruling since even the majority were split in their opinions and because the precedent had been set that Article 295 could be enforced on people who no longer held political office.

The declaration relates to a time Mr Thaksin served in a previous government.

Four of the eight who ruled in Mr Thaksin's favour reasoned that Article 295 could not be used in the Thaksin case. They were Mr Kramol, Mr Pan, Mr Jumpol and Mr Sak. The other four believed the premier did not intend to conceal his wealth.

The source said Mr Jumpol, in particular, once cited Article 295 in finding Jirayu Charasathian guilty of concealing his wealth. Mr Jirayu left his post as adviser to a former deputy public health minister in 1997. In March last year the graft agency found he hid his assets. The court upheld the verdict.

The source quoted Mr Jumpol as saying that unlike Mr Thaksin, Mr Jirayu did not use Article 295 as part of his defence.

Mr Jumpol yesterday said Mr Thaksin did not hold office when declaring his assets on Nov 7, 1997, so Article 295 could not be applied. His decision was based purely on legal principles and not on the fact that Mr Thaksin was riding a wave of popularity.

Judge Preecha said Mr Thaksin did not deliberately hide his wealth. Shareholding management was considered private business and checks by the graft agency could be intrusive to personal rights.

Judge Ura said he believed Mr Thaksin should have known about the share transfers to his domestic staff so he decided that the prime minister had intended to withhold that information.

Judge Suchinda said he ruled Mr Thaksin did not intend to hide shares held by nominees. Putting shares in other people's names was a common practice.

Allegations that Mr Thaksin knew his wife, Khunying Pojamarn, had transferred shares to others had grounds but there was no substantial evidence to prove that.

"I have to give him the benefit of the doubt," he said.