Top court finds Noppadon innocent over World Heritage listing affair

The court dismissed the allegation of malfeasance, by six votes to three -saying there was insufficient evidence to prove that Noppadon committed a wrongful act.

After, Noppadon expressed thanks to the court, his lawyers and officials at the Foreign Ministry who testified for him. 

“I felt like I’ve been in hell over the past seven years after being accused of betraying the country, but I forgive all accusers,” he said. 

The National Anti-Corruption Commission indicted Noppadon in accordance with section 157 of the Penal Code for signing the joint communique on June 18, 2008 with Cambodia Deputy Prime Minister Sok An and Unesco representative Francoise Riviere.

The anti-graft body claimed the joint communique was regarded as a treaty with a foreign country and as such needed approval from Parliament before being signed.

The case was intensively politicised, as at the time a yellow shirt conservative movement was protesting against the Samak Sundaravej administration, which Noppadon served as foreign minister. They accused the government and Noppadon of causing Thailand to lose its right to reclaim Preah Vihear. They filed a lawsuit at the Administrative Court, which ruled in June 27, 2008 to revoke the joint communique.

The Constitutional Court ruled in July 8, 2008 that the joint statement required approval from the Parliament, as it might change a boundary line.

If found guilty, Noppadon faced up to 10 years’ in jail and a ban from holding any political position for five years.

The Supreme Court in its verdict said Noppadon conducted the matter with care, checking with concerned agencies, including the Royal Thai Survey Department (about the boundary line) and the Foreign Ministry’s Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs, before signing the document.

It said he undertook the steps needed to ensure the move did not impact negatively on the boundary line, adding: “The accused did not initiate the joint communique. It was a tri-party negotiation in which Thailand, Cambodia and Unesco supported the World Heritage inscription.

“The accused revoked the |joint communique, as it was |nullified by the Administrative |Court. The document was not used |by Unesco for consideration of the World Heritage inscription.” 

In relation to Noppadon not seeking prior Parliament approval, the panel of judges took into account the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs’s opinion that the joint communique was not a treaty which required approval, since it made no change to the boundary line.