Yingluck flayed for dragging her feet

He also complained that some of the 18 new witnesses did not appear to have anything to do with the case, such as the former permanent secretary of the Information, Communications and Technology Ministry, a former justice minister and some provincial governors.

“This is nothing but an attempt to drag out the case,” he said, adding that the military-led regime was tired of her moves. 

Yingluck has been charged with dereliction of duty causing damage, under Section 157 of the Criminal Code, and failure to perform her duty as a state official, under the Anti-Corruption Act 1999, to stop corruption in the rice-pledging scheme. The subsidy programme allegedly caused losses of more than Bt500 billion to the state.

When the investigation process, including testimonies from witnesses, is completed, the Commerce Ministry can then move ahead with demanding compensation for losses allegedly caused by the farmer subsidy programme. 

“Every time the testimonies are close to finishing, Yingluck will request more witnesses. This has happened three times already,” Sansern said. 

He added that many of the so-called witnesses did not cooperate with the fact-finding committee and it often took too long to get them to testify.

“The government has extended the investigation period three times, and this time the deadline was December 30. This means we have given her many chances already, and we cannot tell when she will stop asking for more witnesses,” the spokesman said.

Sansern claimed that the government believed in justice and gave defendants every opportunity to prove their innocence. It has never rejected requests for additional witnesses if bringing them on would yield significant or new information that would be useful for the trial, he said.

The public has been waiting for the final answer on the case, and if it goes beyond the statute of limitations, then it would be a loss to the country.

“The fact-finding committee will consider whether the facts found are enough and whether it should allow more witnesses. Then it will propose to the government as to whether or not it should accept her petition and why,” he said.

Meanwhile Yingluck’s lawyer Norawit Larlang refuted Sansern’s criticism and said it only proved the government did not understand its role as a provider of justice, which is a fundamental right protected by every constitution, including the 2014 interim charter adopted by the junta.

He said for the trial, Yingluck had already discussed with the government that the issue of state losses from the scheme should be decided by a court. The government, as a stakeholder, should not investigate or give any judgement, the lawyer explained.

When the government had itself decided to examine the case, it should not complain that it is ‘tired’ of facilitating the judicial process, Norawit noted. The lawyer said the 18 additional witnesses were all relevant to the case. Besides, the trial would not end until February 2017. The rush to close the case could only be deemed that it wanted the file for the use of the testification of the witnesses on the investigator’s side on January 25, 2016, he said and questioned whether the government is neglecting its role as the ‘justice provider’.