Bail for red-shirt leaders should be revoked, Democrats say
Play
The opposition Democrat Party Monday asked the Department of Special Investigation and the Attorney-General's Office to get the Criminal Court to withdraw bail for red-shirt leaders who recently threatened Constitution Court judges.
Democrat MP Wirut Kalayasiri, a key member of the party’s legal team, said Monday that red-shirt leaders Natthawut Saikua, Jatuporn Promphan, and Yoswalit Chooklom had severely criticised the judges for deciding to review petitions against an amendment to allow a rewrite of the Constitution.
Wirut said the three red-shirt leaders, who are closely connected to the ruling Pheu Thai Party and government, threatened judges from the Constitution Court and provoked hatred among their red-shirt supporters.
The Democrat MP said separate acts by the three redshirt leaders should be regarded as a violation of conditions set by the Criminal Court for their temporary release.
The three, and other red-shirt leaders, are accused of terrorism and inciting violence in mid2010 that led to rioting, arson attacks on dozens of buildings in central Bangkok and the death of more than 91 people, including many not involved in the 10 weeks of street protests.
“The three men pressured the Constitution Court judges and incited unrest, which is against the conditions of their bail,” Wirut said. He said that DSI chief Tarit Pengdith and the attorney-general were obliged to seek a Criminal Court order to withdraw their temporary release.
“If they [the redshirt leaders] are allowed to continue like this, damage will be done to the country’s peace and security,” he said.
But Tarit said Monday the issue was beyond DSI authority – it was up to state prosecutors.
“The DSI has completed its job already. The agency prepared the case and the public prosecutors filed it with the court. So, the power to seek a court withdrawal of bail rests with the prosecutors,” he said.
A decision by the Constitution Court early this month led to parliament postponing a vote in a final reading on whether to pass the constitutional amendment to allow the establishment of a constitution drafting assembly. Many government politicians and their supporters accused the court of interfering with the legislature but the court insisted on its constitutional authority to rule on the case.
