Gov's political future in jeopardy

Despite the endorsement last week, which enables him to take up the Bangkok governor’s post for a second time, Sukhumbhand Paribatra’s long-term political future and his reign at the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration could be affected by several criminal cases and political inquiries, including the much-heralded extension of a BTS concession.
The Department of Special Investigation has summoned him and his deputies to hear their charges next Wednesday.
If the Criminal Court finds him guilty in relation to the BTS concession, it is possible that like his predecessor Apirak Kosayodhin, he too might have to leave office in the middle of his second term. Apirak quit over a National Anti-Corruption Commission verdict over graft allegations related to an expensive BMA-approved 2008 purchase of a large number of fire trucks that were never used.

Sukhumbhand is facing another set of legal problems. The DSI found that he approved the operation of the Sukhumvit Soi85-Soi 107 BTS extension without seeking a nod from the Interior Ministry, just like Apirak gave the BTS Silom-Taksin Bridge extension an okay without ministerial approval.
However, Sukhumbhand may be able to cling on to this post longer than Apirak, because the BTS concession case is undergoing the normal prosecution process – the public prosecutors are expecting a recommendation from the DSI before a time-consuming court trial can kick off. Besides, Apirak quit voluntarily a few months after the NACC found him guilty in the purchase of fire trucks.
The Interior Ministry, meanwhile, is expected to say if it will uphold a 1972 coup-enabled order which forbids the operation of public utilities or services without approval from the ministry and subjects the violators to a year in prison and/or a Bt20,000 fine. In case it opts for this, the DSI claims it will be authorised to take additional action against Sukhumbhand and Apirak.
During Sukhumbhand’s first term, the BMA signed a contract with BMA-run Krungthep Thanakom on May 2, 2012, and the following day the company hired BTSC to “further provide” the service until May 3, 2042 for Bt190 billion. In other words, Krungthep Thanakom extended BTSC’s current contract, which ends in 2029, by 30 years.
Through the Interior Ministry, the Pheu Thai-run government protested that the BMA contract could be construed as granting approval to a government-granted concession without a nod from the ministry, which violates the coup-enabled order.
BMA and Krungthep Thanakom responded that the contract was not an extension of contract but that the services had been bought and that the BTS was part of BMA’s assets made available in the original BTS concession. The BMA also said it could manage its assets on its own, citing a 1985 BMA-enabled regulation, two articles under the Constitution and a 1999 law which promotes and mandates the decentralisation of authorities as reasons and defence.
The BMA also cited a Council of State interpretation that the coup-enabled order was unconstitutional and that the DSI has no jurisdiction over this BTS concession because it involves negligence of duty under the Criminal Code's Article 157, thus enabling the NACC to handle the case. Another legal interpretation by the Council of State only forbids private businesses from running public utilities or service, but not a state agency or authorities from operating or granting or extending concessions.
The accused in this matter are eight other people, mostly members of the BMA management and senior officials, as well as two entities – the Bangkok Mass Transit System, which runs the BTS train service, and Krungthep Thanakom.
Apart from the BTS concession, Sukhumbhand is facing five other cases related to electoral laws, including the one related to his contributions to the Democrat Party, which is only allowed in the form of a crossed cheque or a bill of exchange. Sukhumbhand and 47 other Democrat MPs, including party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva, made electronic transfers to the party’s bank account. The DSI is looking into the case, but the Democrats say it is under the jurisdiction of the Election Commission.
The four other cases are being taken care of by the Election Commission, which has received complaints about Abhisit, Sukhumbhand and a few other Democrats violating electoral laws by making unfavourable statements about Pongsapat Pongcharoen, the Pheu Thai candidate in the March 3 gubernatorial election.