Court verdict will skirt Article 295

Chuan warns against a 'grey' precedent

Pradit Ruangdit and Mongkol Bangprapa

The Constitutional Court has decided not to include favourable interpretations of Article 295 in its common verdict on Thaksin Shinawatra's acquittal, to avoid legal repercussions.

Jul Atirek, one of the eight judges who found the prime minister not guilty of hiding his assets, said yesterday the written judgment would instead state that Article 295 was applicable to Mr Thaksin, even if he did not hold a political post at the time of his assets declaration.

Lt-Gen Jul said the final verdict would also contain two other crucial points: that Mr Thaksin was duty-bound to disclose his financial figures under Article 291 of the constitution after leaving office, and that there were reasons to believe he did not intend to conceal his assets.

The compromise was reached after Kramol Thongthammachart, a judge, had a change of heart about citing Article 295 as a reason in the acquittal.

Mr Kramol and three other judges-Jumpol na Songkhla, Pan Chantarapan and Sak Techacharn-argued Article 295 could not be enforced on Mr Thaksin because he had vacated the deputy premiership in the Chavalit Yongchaiyudh government before he submitted his financial statements to the National Counter Corruption Commission on Nov 7, 1997. Their argument, however, left a lot open to debate.

Opposition leader Chuan Leekpai said if the court set a "grey" precedent, former political office holders would be left in a legal quandary about whether they still had to declare their assets and debts.

If Article 295 could not be applied in the Thaksin case, Mr Chuan said, he doubted an assets declaration would remain mandatory for some former cabinet members not holding a political post now.

This would include former deputy prime minister Supachai Panitchapakdi and former deputy finance minister Pisit Leeahtham.

Mr Chuan said Articles 291 and 292 of the charter require a political office holder to declare his or her assets and debts upon taking, on leaving office, and again one year later.

"If we follow a new precedent that a former holder of political office does not have to declare assets, would that contravene the law which governs checks on corruption?"Mr Kramol said in his view Mr Thaksin, at the time of his assets declarations, was not in a position to wield influence for his personal gain.

That was why he decided the telecom tycoon had not intend to hide part of his wealth.

Mr Kramol countered remarks that his judgment had destroyed the "sanctity" of the National Counter Corruption Commission's earlier rulings against a number of politicians, which had been upheld by the Constitutional Court. He said Kosol Srisang and Prayut Mahakijsiri also cited Article 295 in their defence, yet he still found they had intentionally hidden their wealth.

Mr Kramol said Mr Prayut's case was different from Mr Thaksin's as he had still been a Thai Rak Thai list-MP when he declared his assets.

Mr Prayut lost his House seat and was barred from public office for five years when the court found him guilty of concealing his wealth, by a vote of 12-1, last Friday.

Mr Kramol said the corruption commission could also take action against politicians who had lied about their wealth through the Criminal Court.

Mr Pan, a Constitutional Court judge, said he had divided offenders of rules governing assets declarations into three groups-holders of political posts, former holders of political office, and corrupt politicians.

He was of the view the Constitutional Court had authority to apply Article 295 in false assets declaration cases only to people actually in office.

"That was why I believed Article 295 could not be used against Mr Thaksin," he said.

Mr Pan said the Supreme Court's political section should deal with the second and third groups, in cases brought under Article 119 of the anti-corruption law.

The eight judges who acquitted Mr Thaksin will start writing their common judgment tomorrow.