Majority judges to go for article's non-applicability

Fears minority judges might not concur

Supawadee Susanpoolthong

A void of application of Article 295 is likely to be stated in the common verdict of the Constitutional Court acquitting the premier of wealth concealment, or the majority judges could be marginalised.

The court was finding it difficult to write the ruling as the majority judges _ the eight who voted to clear Thaksin Shinawatra of hiding his assets _ were split over whether the final verdict should mention non-enforcement of Article 295 on the premier.

Lt-Gen Jul Atirek said the majority judges, himself included, had met to draft the final verdict to be tabled for all judges to endorse tomorrow.

But a court source said it was unclear if the seven minority judges would be willing to sign the common verdict.

Lt-Gen Jul said the challenge now was to figure out how to explain the irrelevance of the article to Mr Thaksin's case if the details were to be included.

The four judges in favour of stating the article _ Jumpol na Songkhla, Pan Chantharapan, Sak Techachan, and Kramol Thongthammachart _ agreed to insert the statement at the end of the common verdict.

The judges insisted Mr Thaksin was not bound by the article as his declaration of assets _ the basis of the concealment charge against him _ was made after he left the Chavait Yongchaiyudh government.

He was not deemed a ``political post-holder'' as stipulated by the article.

Argument, however, was put forth that although Mr Thaksin submitted records of his assets and liabilities a day after the resignation of Gen Chavalit as premier on Nov 6, 1997, which in theory ended the government's tenure, cabinet remained functional in its caretaking capacity.

In practice, then, cabinet members including Mr Thaksin were considered still to be in office at the time of the assets declaration.

The other four majority judges _ Lt-Gen Jul, Sujinda Yongsunthorn, Anant Ketwong and Preecha Chalermwanich _ did not cite the irrelevance of the article as their reason for acquitting Mr Thaksin.

Rather, they felt facts presented in the trial convinced them the premier did not intend to cover up his wealth.

A majority judge, who declined to be named, said despite disagreement as to whether to cite the article, majority judges would probably unify their stand in favour of citation at the end of the day. The article was crucial, he said, as it highlighted the reason for Mr Thaksin's acquittal.

Equally important was the fact that majority judges could be viewed as being defeated by their minority colleagues if their opinions expressed in the final verdict were not in harmony.

The four majority judges must compromise by accepting the stand of the other four to ``solidify'' the verdict.

But the judge was concerned minority judges might choose not to endorse the verdict if its contents appeared fragmented.

The source said the verdict was expected to comprise three main sections, with the first touching on general arguments also raised by the National Counter Corruption Commission, that Article 295 applied to Mr Thaksin.

The second portion would assert there was no credible evidence affirming Mr Thaksin acknowledged the transfer of shares to close aides, relatives and household staff. The transfer was thought to be a method of concealing wealth.

The section underscores reasons for the acquittal and represents the platform of the majority judges. The last section would refer to the four judges' insistence on the irrelevance of Article 295.