Former police chief and senator Pratin Santiprabhob yesterday denied terrorism charges pressed against him, calling them “silly and lacking substance”.
Pol Gen Pratin yesterday talked to the press at his house about the ongoing prosecution of leaders of the now-defunct People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) who shut down Suvarnabhumi airport in 2008, and the controversial involvement of another former police chief, Pol Gen Somyot Poompunmuang.
Ninety-eight PAD leaders and members were charged with illegal gathering, trespassing on state property, causing damage to the airport’s vicinity, blockading roads and disrupting public communication, which fall under the category of terrorism.
“I don’t trust the police investigation conducted under the leadership of Pol Gen Somyot. The case appears to have been handled with little logic. The protest did not appear to be an act of terror in any way,” Pol Gen Pratin said.
“Many of the protesters were senior citizens, and some are former diplomats, soldiers. For myself, I am a former police chief. I visited the protesters and got up on stage for just five minutes at the airport, and that was all the evidence the police had to charge me with terrorism,” he added.
On Feb 5, 11 of the 98 accused PAD members under a group called Yutithampiwat, or “Justice Revolution”, submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court to reconsider proceeding with the investigation as they said the protest was intended to protect the charter.
A l awyer representing the PAD, Prayonk Chaiyasri, said 11 members have submitted a formal petition to ask whether the PAD protest was in accordance with the constitution.
“Firstly, the former government alleged both the PAD and PDRC [People’s Democratic Reform Committee] movements attempted to oust the government, which they claimed violates Section 68 of the constitution. However, the Constitutional Court rejected the request to proceed with the trial,” Mr Prayonk said.
“If state officials decide to proceed with the trial using the same charges pressed by the previous government, is this not disobeying the Constitutional Court’s decision on the matter?” he added.
“Second, if the first point proves state officials violated the court’s decision, then there must be a court ruling on whether or not the PAD and PDRC movements complied with the constitution,” he said.