Yingluck to appeal court decision to reject lawsuit against Trakul, others

Yingluck filed the lawsuit last week accusing Trakul and others of abusing their authority. The court rejected the suit on Tuesday on the grounds that Yingluck had no evidence to prove that Trakul and others had harassed and framed her.

Her lawyer, Norawit Lalaeng, said Yingluck would appeal the ruling at the Court of Appeals, and quoted her as saying that she regretted not presenting key evidence to the Criminal Court because she wanted to present it during the trial. The evidence includes meeting appointments between officials of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) and the Office of the Attorney General, Norawit said.

Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam said the Commerce and Finance Ministries had appointed their own fact-finding panel to evaluate the damage incurred to the state from the rice-pledging scheme. He said he has received a report from one of the two fact-finding panels. However, he would not say which ministry’s panel had yet to submit its report. He only said that if there was a delay, he would submit the first report to the premier. 

Once the PM receives reports from both panels, and if he agrees with the suggestions, he will forward the matter to the committee on civil liability led by the Comptroller’s General Department chief. 

When the committee comes up with a resolution, the PM will endorse an administrative order to get people in question to pay the compensation without having to seek Cabinet approval.

Should the damaged parties want to file a counter suit, they can file the suit against the PM, the Commerce and Finance ministers, but not against the Cabinet. 

Wissanu said Yingluck could file a lawsuit with the Administrative Court and seek to have the order asking her to pay compensation revoked. If the court rules against her petition, she can then take it to the Supreme Administrative Court.

Asked if Yingluck can file a civil counter suit against the prime minister, Wissanu said she had every right if she was confident that the premier had harassed or filed false charges against her. 

“The issue here is whether the prime minister is filing the lawsuit in line with his duty or making up evidence to frame her,” Wissanu pointed out.