Wissanu insists on using administrative order in rice cases

Wissanu insists on using administrative order in rice cases

Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam has reiterated the government is not bullying ex-PM Yingluck Shinawatra when it demands compensation from her for damages from the rice-pledging programme using the 1996 administrative tort law instead of the Civil Code.

Damages can be claimed in one of the two ways, he said.

"The government may file for the damages under the Civil Code, with it being the plaintiff. This is the normal method used and the case will go through the three-tiered court system."

The other method is to seek compensation under the 1996 tort liabilities for state officials.

"This law has been in use for 19 years so it's hardly an innovation to bully a specific person. The procedures involve fair investigation and an opportunity [for the accused] to submit evidence," said Mr Wissanu.

As to why this method was chosen over a civil law, he explained it applied because the accused is a "state official" under Section 4 of the Tort Liabilities Act.

"By 'state official', we mean permanent government officials and political officials up to the prime minister rank," he said.

"We chose this channel as it applies only to state officials and not people from the private sector.

"After discussions, we decide to use this method which has its own pros and cons. Since the law took effect 19 years ago, there have been 5,000 cases and the civil liabilities committee is familiar with it," he said.

Mr Wissanu explained the procedure involved examination by the fact-finding committee and the civil liabilities committee before the administrative order is issued.

If the accused thinks the order is unfair, he can appeal it in 15 days. If the appeal committee agrees with him, the case is closed. But if it doesn't, the accused can appeal the Administrative Court and, subsequently, the Supreme Administrative Court, he said.

"In the past, several of the accused were found not guilty by the courts and the orders were revoked. In some case, the courts reduced the damages or came up with a new calculation formula."

Citing as examples, he said the cases that went through this channel were the Khlong Dan case, the fire-engine boat corruption case and the Mor Chit land case.

"So I don't understand what the accused thought when she demanded method 1 and rejected method 2 since both eventually end in courts," he said.

Ms Yingluck sent a few letters to the Finance Ministry committee and Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha protesting the use of the administrative recourse and requesting her case be considered by the Civil Court, if and when she has been found guilty of neglect of duty by the Supreme Court for politicians. Her Pheu Thai party members also claimed she was being treated unfairly.

Mr Wissanu added Ms Yingluck case was being examined by the fact-finding committee and the examination was extended to Nov 30 or more if there is more evidence.

But not all lawyers agreed with Mr Wissanu.

Somlak Chadkrabuanpol, adviser to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) and a former NACC commissioner, interpreted the term "state officials" differently and argued the tort law should not apply to political offices.

"This is especially the case if we look at the relevant administrative procedure law, which spells out it must not be used with "parliament and the cabinet". By comparison, the NACC law, which targets politicians, states clearly it applies to political offices," she said in early November.

The tort liabilities act was passed by the Banharn Silpa-archa government to protect state officials who have inadvertently caused damages to others when performing their duties.

Before the law took effect, when an agency was sued for damages by a third party, it forced the erring official to pay them.

"If a BMTA [Bangkok Mass Transit Authority] bus driver hit someone, the driver might have to take responsibility under the Civil Code. But with the tort liabilities law, he will be protected. If the driver did not deliberately hit him or was extremely careless, then the BMTA has to pay the damages on his behalf and could not force the driver to pay," Ms Somlak said.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (4)