An official version that is just too hard to believe

Robbery is so common in Thailand that it’s widely accepted it can occur anywhere and anytime. Yet it was almost immediately discarded as a possible motive in the murder of Akeyuth Anchanbutr. The businessman and government critic’s conflicts with both the police and the ruling party left many observers suspicious of a darker cause. That the police investigation has progressed rapidly – a rarity in such a high-profile case – only adds to the doubt.

Who killed Akeyuth and why? These questions undoubtedly require thorough investigation. The least familiarity with the law should prevent anyone from jumping the gun and voicing assumptions. Yet the same day Akeyuth’s death was confirmed, Deputy Prime Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung declared it the result of a robbery, telling reporters that the man’s chauffeur, Santiparb Pengduang, had murdered his boss for his money. Chalerm’s outrageously premature judgement raised suspicion further. How was he in possession of such “facts” so soon? Akeyuth’s lawyer, Suwat Apipak, responded firmly that the killer’s motivation was not theft.

No one expects quick answers in a murder investigation like this, but the police have made extraordinary progress in a short time. The discovery of the body, the interrogation of the suspect and the re-enactment of the crime proceeded at such a rapid pace that they served in turn to make the case seem more mysterious. The more the police attempt to demonstrate that the businessman was murdered for his money, the more doubters appeared on newspaper opinion pages and in online forums. 

Loopholes in the investigation seemed to loom large. Sceptics on Facebook share the dubious points that must be challenged. Why did the alleged murderer go home to see his parents immediately afterward? How did the van in which Akeyuth was supposedly killed pass so many police checkpoints between his home, Suvarnabhumi Airport and Pattalung, where his body was ultimately found? Why have the police failed to recover Akeyuth’s missing valuables, including Rolex watches? And why was it so much easier to determine the murderer in this case than it is to track down the owners of the luxury cars that caught fire while being shipped through Isaan?

The clear indication in all this questioning is that a large segment of the public mistrusts the police and government’s handling of the case. Thailand’s failure to adopt international standards of justice might be misguiding us to yet another case of injustice. In more developed countries, if a murder case involves politics, investigators who are independent of the local police take charge. Akeyuth’s murder is in this category. He was well known as a critic of ousted premier Thaksin Shinawatra and it was he who sparked a furore over Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra meeting a businessman at a Bangkok hotel. Akeyuth had also filed a libel suit against Bangkok Police Chief Kamronwit Thoopkrachang – a Thaksin devotee – over a police raid on a karaoke bar. Kamronwit is, of course, now chief investigator in the murder of a man who sued him.

Meanwhile missing lawyer Somchai Neelaphaijit’s widow Angkana has claimed that some of the police officers who captured the suspects in Akeyuth’s case were also implicated in the unsolved disappearance of her husband in 2004. Whether true or not, the accusations further darken the clouds over the current investigation.

This sordid investigation has rubbed salt into the wound of public mistrust for authority. It is a matter of urgency for the police and government to regain credibility. They must ensure that the justice system works without compromise. The murder of Akeyuth has become a critical matter. The police and government have no choice but to prove to the public that they can be just as well as trustworthy, whether or not the victim is their friend or foe.