OAG decision on rice-scheme case may prove to be fair
Play
The Office of the Attorney-General (OAG)'s decision to put former PM Yingluck Shinawatra's prosecution on hold has raised much criticism. Yingluck is facing charges of dereliction of duty for failing to act on corruption in her government's rice-pledging
There have been questions that maybe the OAG does not want to prosecute Yingluck, though by law the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is in its right to take the case to court.
Many political observers, however, agree with the OAG’s decision as it has revealed some flaws in the case file submitted by the NACC.
Citing incomplete evidence and details, the OAG decided to set up a joint committee comprised of public prosecutors and NACC official to conduct further investigation into the case.
Wanchai Rujanawong, OAG spokesman, said the setting up of the joint committee was aimed at strengthening and plugging all loopholes in the case so it is “perfect” before public prosecutors bring Yingluck before the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders.
The OAG pinpointed three points in NACC’s case that need more investigation:
First, the OAG wants the NACC to produce evidence that clearly shows that Yingluck had the power to scrap the rice-pledging scheme, which was part of her government’s policy announced to the Parliament.
Second, the NACC has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Yingluck failed to prevent corruption in the scheme even after being notified of it by the NACC and the Office of the Auditor-General.
Third, the NACC must present detailed evidence of the corruption and the stages at which it occurred.
The weakest point in the case is why the NACC cited corruption in the scheme using just the cover page of Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI)’s report as evidence.
Also, why did the NACC not present its own evidence or offer better, more solid proof?
Somkiat Tangkitvanich, TDRI president, posted a comment on Facebook on Monday saying the NACC should not refer to TDRI’s report on the rice-pledging scheme as evidence to incriminate anybody because evidence used in an academic sense is different to evidence used in a criminal or political case.
When launching an investigation into the rice-pledging scheme, the NACC first focused on the “fake” government-to-government deals with China in which it found 15 people allegedly involved, including former commerce minister Boonsong Teriyapirom and his deputy, Poom Sarapol.
Perhaps it would be a good idea if the NACC first concluded this case and submitted this “fake” deal as evidence on Yingluck’s alleged negligence.
On the one hand, the OAG’s decision could weaken the NACC or discredit it further, especially since it was accused of being unusually hasty in launching an investigation and drawing a conclusion on the case against Yingluck.
On the other hand, OAG’s decision could silence critics when better evidence is submitted and the attorney-general finally decides to prosecute the former PM.
Once the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders hands down a verdict, the defendant cannot appeal unless he or she has sufficient new evidence for the court to overturn its previous verdict.
Hence, getting the NACC to make its case against Yingluck stronger would be the best and the fairest for all sides.
