• 
• 

Published on December 13, 2007

The EC rejected the case on grounds that the junta had constitutional immunity to safeguard national security and that no action had actually been taken against the PPP.

"The crucial issue leading to the dismissal of the case is the absence of wrongdoing," EC chairman Apichart Sukhagga-nond said.

The junta and the PPP both testified that actual implementation of the plans had not happened because the two classified documents were leaked before funds were earmarked, he said. The PPP had confirmed discovery of the plans, but not actions.

He said the EC did not address the issue of authenticity of the documents as it was not under its purview.

He also dismissed speculation that the EC might cite a caution against the junta, arguing the caution was deemed unwarranted because the junta was not involved in any wrongdoing.

With regard to the EC-appointed panel report finding the junta guilty of lacking political neutrality, he said the EC had named the Suphon Yutithada panel for a fact-finding mission in order to assist the five EC members to form their decision on the issue.

But the Suphon panel decided to act beyond its mandate and took a 4-3 vote to pass judgement, he said.

"The EC acknowledged the panel report but was not obliged to agree with every finding," he said.

He said the five EC members were free to review the report as deemed necessary before forming their own judgement.

He admitted the classified documents singled out the PPP as a target but the issue was irrelevant as the plans were not implemented.

By a majority vote of 4-1, the EC decided to drop charges relating to the alleged undermining of the PPP and stopped short of addressing the issue of whether the junta had tried to tamper with the electoral process. It simply stated in its ruling that a review was unwarranted in the absence of any violations.

In the deliberations leading to the majority decision, EC member Sodsri Satayathum was the lone dissenting voice. She argued that the EC had no mandate to review the case involving the junta.

Her argument was in effect in favour of an outright dismissal while the majority of four deemed it necessary to review before drawing a conclusion to dismiss the case.

Of the majority four, Apichart and EC member Prapun Naigowit opined the junta lacked political neutrality but the interim charter and Article 309 of the 2007 Constitution granted immunity to security-related actions undertaken by the junta. Because of the immunity, the two voted for the case dismissal.

Two EC members, Sumeth Ubanisakorn and Somchai Juengprasert, argued for dismissal after finding no violations were committed. The two refused to address Article 309 on grounds it might allow the junta to act with impunity in the future.

In a separate case relating to the distribution of video CDs containing election campaign remarks by former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, EC member Prapun said the commission was gathering evidence before deciding on the next move.

"The EC may form a new panel to assist the existing investigative mechanism to speed up progress in the case," he said.

A key legal issue in the case was whether the VCDs were distributed as gifts to voters, he said. If so, it might lead to disqualification of PPP candidates on a charge of vote-buying.

Before disqualifying any candidates, the EC would have to prove the linkage between the candidates and the VCDs, he said.

 The Nation