Majority judges can't agree

Reasons behind 8-7 acquittal too diverse

Supawadee Susanpoolthong

The eight Constitutional Court judges whose votes acquitted Thaksin Shinawatra of concealing his wealth cannot agree on a written judgment to vindicate their verdict.

Four of the eight-Kramol Thongthammachart, Pan Chantarapan, Jumpol na Songkhla and Sak Techacharn-argued that Article 295 of the charter, which penalises political office holders who lie about their wealth, was not applicable to the prime minister.

The others-Preecha Chalermvanich, Jul Atirek, Suchinda Yongsunthorn and Anand Ketwong-were of the opinion Mr Thaksin had not intended to hide his assets.

The seven other judges agreed Article 295 could be applied and ruled Mr Thaksin had intended to withhold information about shares worth billions of baht held in other people's names.

The split in their opinions has stalled the writing of a common verdict.

The court on Friday acquitted Mr Thaksin on a charge of deliberately concealing his wealth by a vote of 8-7.

Mr Preecha said yesterday the court had made a mistake by not first getting agreement from all 15 judges on whether Article 295 could be applied to a former holder of a political post. "We did not vote on that point. That's our mistake," he said.

Mr Preecha said the majority had agreed throughout deliberations that Article 295 could be applied to the prime minister. When it came to voting, judges were asked if they considered Mr Thaksin guilty or not. "And eight people said he was not," he said.

Mr Suchinda said the common ruling should say Mr Thaksin was acquitted because the court found he did not intend to hide his assets.

Citing Article 295 could create a problem as only four of the 15 judges believed it was not applicable in the Thaksin case, Mr Suchinda said.

He challenged the National Counter Corruption Commission and the Senate to determine if judges really were bribed to favour Mr Thaksin.

Mr Kramol insisted that opinions that Article 295 could not be applied because Mr Thaksin had already left office when he disclosed his financial figures in late 1997 must also be written down.

Mr Kramol, however, apparently was blowing hot and cold.

On Friday, the judge reportedly agreed to change his opinion that Article 295 could not be applied and sided with the four who found Mr Thaksin did not intend to hide his wealth. That would have brought to five the number of judges who did not cite Article 295 in acquitting Mr Thaksin-a majority within the majority.

Suvit Theerapong, who was in the minority, said checks on the unusual wealth of politicians would be powerless if Article 295 could not be cited against ex-political office holders. Article 295 was related to Article 292, which requires they declare their assets and debts to the graft commission one year after leaving office.

"If Article 295 can't be used, that means Article 292 also can't be used, meaning authorities would be unable to trace movements of assets," he said.

Constitutional Court president Prasert Nasakul yesterday denied Mr Thaksin's accusation he had shown partiality in the way he read out the verdict. He said he was not prejudiced.

Opposition leader Chuan Leekpai said the court was duty-bound to clear up any suspicions about its verdict, which differed from a precedent the court had set earlier.