A list-MP of the ruling Pheu Thai Party is being urged to give up his parliamentary immunity and stand trial in court over the 2004 Tak Bai massacre case before the statute of limitation expires in 44 days.
Parliament met on Wednesday to debate whether to greenlight Gen Pisal Wattanawongkiri, a former Army Region 4 Commander and Pheu Thai Party list-MP, standing trial in the Narathiwat Criminal Court. The case starts on Oct 12. An MP has immunity from being tried in court during a parliamentary session. However, parliament can approve waiving immunity so a lawmaker can face trial.
Romadon Panjor, list-MP from the main opposition People's Party (PP), told the House it is crucial for Gen Pisal to be at the first hearing to keep the case active in the court system and prevent its expiration, due on Oct 25, from taking effect.
Gen Pisal is one of seven defendants and former senior officials accused of being complicit in the deadly dispersal of protesters by security forces outside Tak Bai police station in Tak Bai district on Oct 25, 2004.
The protesters were calling for the release of six detainees.
Seven demonstrators died at the scene, and 78 others died from suffocation or organ failure as they were detained and transported to a military camp in Pattani's Nong Chik district some 140 kilometres away.
Relatives of the dead petitioned House Speaker Wan Muhamad Noor Matha, asking him to allow Gen Pisal to be present at the first hearing, fearing his absence would lead to the case being dismissed on account of an expired statute of limitations.
The petition was lodged via Kamolsak Leewamoh, a Prachachat Party MP for Narathiwat and chairman of the House Committee on Legal Affairs, Justice and Human Rights. Mr Wan said there has been no request from the court to have Gen Pisal put on trial, nor has the accused MP expressed a wish to be tried.
The House speaker said immunity was accorded to lawmakers to prevent an obligation to attend a trial from being used as a pretext to disrupt their legislative duty.
However, Mr Romadon insisted that normally defendants must be heard in person for the sake of administering justice. He said the case is significant as it serves as a litmus test of the justice system and the authorities' ability to maintain security in the far South.