Pheu Thai questions impartiality of draft bill on court procedures against politicians in criminal c

The party threatened to bring the issue to the attention of international human-rights organisations as well as to the prime minister, asking him to forward the bill to the Constitutional Court to look into its constitutionality.
The party raised three points that it objects to, the first being that the draft law’s provision for a court proceeding without defendants being present went against a universal principle concerning fundamental human rights, as it was deemed to violate defendants’ right for justice. 
Second, Pheu Thai said in its statement, the wavier of the statute of limitations under this law would contradict a conventional principle of justice.
It would also allow partiality in case proceedings and enforcement, as witnesses or evidence could be incomplete over time and become selective if no statute of limitations were set, the party said.
Lastly, the new law as drafted would be applied retroactively, and its enactment would therefore have retroactive effects on those still defending cases in court. 
This, the party argued, would violate the rule of law.
The new draft bill on court procedures against political office holders was passed last week by the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) despite concerns over emerging challenges to the rule of law and human rights.
NLA lawmakers have defended the bill’s content, saying it was appropriate, considering changes and the complexity of corruption that has developed over time. 
They claim that they have addressed a sufficient degree of rights protection for political office holders to defend themselves via their lawyers if they are absent from court. 
The waiver of the statute of limitations, meanwhile, has been introduced to give fair treatment to the public as well as to the state, both of which face losses resulting from corruption, lawmakers also argue. 
Moreover, they reason, the provision for court proceedings to be applied retroactively could mean that more cases continue to the end of the judicial process, especially those that are put on hold.