Proof before prosecution
After the Constitutional Court stripped Future Forward Party (FFP) leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit of his MP status on Wednesday, the plaintiff in the case, the Election Commission (EC), raised the prospect of taking an even harsher step — laying criminal charges against him.
However, this reaction can be considered premature and ill-advised. For one thing, any moves to have someone locked up should never be taken lightly. In fact, any step in that direction should strictly follow the universal principles of criminal prosecution. Among these are proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The poll agency’s plan, however, demonstrates the direction Thailand’s law-enforcement in political cases is taking — moving towards rule by law, rather than the rule of law.
The EC should handle this matter with utmost care, otherwise it risks setting bad precedents and allowing double standards in the enforcement of law.
In the case it filed with the Constitutional Court, the EC alleged that the FFP leader had failed to transfer his shares in V-Luck Media Co prior to applying for MP candidacy in the March 24 election, and thus violated the electoral law. The politician defended himself by saying the shares were transferred in time, and even presented documents as proof.
However, the court dismissed this evidence, saying the documents were not official, and found him guilty. The verdict lent great weight to circumstantial evidence, focusing on irregularities in the transfer and the fact that the company’s annual shareholders report was submitted to the Commerce Ministry’s Department of Business Development on March 21.
EC secretary-general Pol Col Jarungvith Phumma said this ruling will likely be included in a related criminal case, accusing Mr Thanathorn of entering the race for votes despite knowing that he was not qualified, which is a criminal offence under the same law.
Under the criminal law, the EC is required to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt of the intention behind the alleged offence. But, the commission’s “investigation”, so far, has failed to come up with enough hard evidence showing that he did indeed hold media shares while running for elections. There is also no evidence of Mr Thanathorn intending to use this media firm to gain advantage over his rivals, which is a real offence under the law. The EC also has to prove whether the defendant’s actions were actually serious enough.
Criminal prosecution is a very serious matter. Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam rightly pointed out yesterday that the court ruling should not be used as grounds for the EC to criminally prosecute Mr Thanathorn.
Besides, there have been several similar media shareholding cases against other candidates and MPs, but it remains to be seen whether the EC will slap them with criminal charges if they are found in the wrong like Mr Thanathorn. Earlier this year, the EC chose not to seek criminal punishment for an FFP Sakon Nakhon MP candidate who was disqualified for the same offence.
Many have already questioned the EC’s political impartiality given that its commissioners were chosen by members of the former junta, whose leaders run the current government. Also, it has been dismissing complaints against politicians and coalition parties too easily, while actively filing cases against the opposition.
The agency’s focus should be more on restoring its credibility and promoting transparency and efficiency in polls, rather than trying to get an opposition politician locked up.