Two years after accepting a complaint from the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the Office of the Attorney General has finally decided to indict 13 former Constitution Court judges, four former election commissioners and three ex-ombudsmen on charges of malfeasance after they gave themselves a monthly allowance of Bt20,000.
In 2007, NACC decided to seek indictments against top officials of independent agencies for violating Article 157 of the Criminal Law by giving themselves a pay raise. On Sunday, the attorney general announced that the indicted officials would be taken to Criminal Court.
The former Constitution Court judges facing action are: Kramol Thongthammachart, Jira Bunpojanasunthorn, Jumpol Na Songkhla, Pan Chantrapan, Mongkol Saratan, Manit Withayatem, Sak Techacharn, Suchit Bunbongkarn, Suthee Sithisomboon, Pol General Suwan Suwanwecho, Suwit Theerapong, Saowanee Assawaroj and Ura Wang-omklang.
The former election commissioners are: Prinya Nakchadtree, Virachai Naewboonnien, Vasana Puemlarp and Charupat Ruangsuwan. The ex-ombudsmen are: the former chairman of the Ombudsman's Office, General Theeradet Meepian; Pramot Chotimongkol; and Poonsup Piya-anant.
In an interview with the Thai Post newspaper, former Constitution Court judge Manit said he had already received unofficial notice of the decision and it did not surprise him. He added that he and his colleagues were planning to fight the case, and even take it to the highest court if necessary.
"I have long resigned myself to my fate - if I have to go to jail, I will accept it," Manit said.
"We did not mean to commit an offence, and after so much furore was created over the matter, we decided to give all the money back to the sate. We did not do anything wrong even though we knew we had the authority to do so," he added.
He said he and his colleagues would fight the case on grounds that they had not given themselves a raise like the former NACC members had, but that the allowances were meant for meetings - as in they would only pay themselves if they attended meetings.
"One of the judges is 75 now, and if he has to fight three courts, he has said he 'will be dead by the time the court makes a final decision'," Manit said.
Meanwhile, another ex-judge, Suchit, who is now president of the Political Development Council, maintained his innocence saying he had not committed any offences and would be happy to take the matter to court. He added that if the court accepted the case, he was not required by law to step down as president of the council. However, he said, if there were any new developments, he would make his own judgement.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Muslim woman sues judge
A Muslim woman on Wednesday sued a Michigan judge for telling her to remove her headscarf in his courtroom, claiming he violated her constitutional right to practise her religion.
Raneen Albaghdady,32, says she felt humiliated when Wayne County Circuit Judge William Callahan ordered her to remove her hijab at a June 16 hearing in his Detroit courtroom. The headscarf,which does not cover the face, is worn by many Muslims in the US.
"This is the country and the land of freedom, and we're not supposed to be treated like this for the scarf," the Dearborn Heights woman said on Wednesday at the Southfield headquarters of the Council on American-Islamic Relations' Michigan chapter, which joined in the federal lawsuit against Judge Callahan and Wayne County.
Ms Albaghdady pushed back her head-scarf at the judge's request during a hearing on her request to change her name. Judge Callahan denied the request on technical grounds.
"Judge Callahan and the court have the greatest respect for spiritual practices and all religious preferences," Judge Callahan said in a statement released by the court."Had he been informed that the head covering had some religious significance, the judge would have permitted Ms Albaghdady to continue wearing it in court."
Ms Albaghdady, a native of Iraq, said she was intimidated by Judge Callahan and feared she would be arrested if she refused to remove her hijab.
"I come from a country where you can't say no to a judge in a courtroom,"she said.
The lawsuit asks a federal judge to order judges in Wayne County to allow the wearing of the headscarf in court.
Raneen Albaghdady,32, says she felt humiliated when Wayne County Circuit Judge William Callahan ordered her to remove her hijab at a June 16 hearing in his Detroit courtroom. The headscarf,which does not cover the face, is worn by many Muslims in the US.
"This is the country and the land of freedom, and we're not supposed to be treated like this for the scarf," the Dearborn Heights woman said on Wednesday at the Southfield headquarters of the Council on American-Islamic Relations' Michigan chapter, which joined in the federal lawsuit against Judge Callahan and Wayne County.
Ms Albaghdady pushed back her head-scarf at the judge's request during a hearing on her request to change her name. Judge Callahan denied the request on technical grounds.
"Judge Callahan and the court have the greatest respect for spiritual practices and all religious preferences," Judge Callahan said in a statement released by the court."Had he been informed that the head covering had some religious significance, the judge would have permitted Ms Albaghdady to continue wearing it in court."
Ms Albaghdady, a native of Iraq, said she was intimidated by Judge Callahan and feared she would be arrested if she refused to remove her hijab.
"I come from a country where you can't say no to a judge in a courtroom,"she said.
The lawsuit asks a federal judge to order judges in Wayne County to allow the wearing of the headscarf in court.
PROTEST PLANNED AFTER COURT REJECTS COMPLAINTS
Map Ta Phut residents yesterday faced double blows in their efforts against expansion of an industrial estate in Rayong province - a request to temporarily delay the construction of 76 new factories was turned down, and a lawsuit accusing high-ranking officials of negligence in enforcing protective measures in the estate dismissed.
The Central Administrative Court's decision to turn down the first request has prompted protest leaders to threaten a mass rally on September 9 to blockade the Map Ta Phut estate and seaports connected to it.
Sutthi Atchasai said Rayong people did not want to hamper the massive investment in their home district but would like to see pollution-control conditions relating to the project were followed under constitutional requirements. "We are contemplating blockading the seaports and the estate, including the sites of the 76 new factories to be constructed soon," he added.
Sutthi led 42 villagers to submit a petition to the court yesterday morning asking it to issue an injunction to temporarily order a halt to the coming construction of the 76 factories in an expansion phase of the estate until new environmental impact assessment (EIA) studies were conducted.
The judges later ruled the court could not halt the construction but would wait for more information from authorities.
A companion petition was also lodged with the court accusing eight people - five Cabinet ministers and heads of three regulatory bodies overseeing pollution-control measures - of negligence that resulted in the construction of the 76 factories going ahead without new EIA studies.
The second petition also requested that the eight issue more pollution-control regulations and that three of the five ministers - overseeing Industry, Energy, and Transport Ministries - revoke licences already granted to construction projects outside the estate that would soon begin without EIA or other conditions being followed.
Srisuwan Janya, a lawyer allied with the villagers' group, who also represented two non-governmental organisations advocating environment protection and against global warming, said the eight violated laws by approving the construction without a public referendum and without giving mandatory approval for the setup of an independent body to study the projects.
The judges ruled in the afternoon that, in the first petition, the villagers failed to provide information on when exactly the construction would begin and end; and in the second petition, the court would wait for the eight to submit their case to the court.
The Central Administrative Court's decision to turn down the first request has prompted protest leaders to threaten a mass rally on September 9 to blockade the Map Ta Phut estate and seaports connected to it.
Sutthi Atchasai said Rayong people did not want to hamper the massive investment in their home district but would like to see pollution-control conditions relating to the project were followed under constitutional requirements. "We are contemplating blockading the seaports and the estate, including the sites of the 76 new factories to be constructed soon," he added.
Sutthi led 42 villagers to submit a petition to the court yesterday morning asking it to issue an injunction to temporarily order a halt to the coming construction of the 76 factories in an expansion phase of the estate until new environmental impact assessment (EIA) studies were conducted.
The judges later ruled the court could not halt the construction but would wait for more information from authorities.
A companion petition was also lodged with the court accusing eight people - five Cabinet ministers and heads of three regulatory bodies overseeing pollution-control measures - of negligence that resulted in the construction of the 76 factories going ahead without new EIA studies.
The second petition also requested that the eight issue more pollution-control regulations and that three of the five ministers - overseeing Industry, Energy, and Transport Ministries - revoke licences already granted to construction projects outside the estate that would soon begin without EIA or other conditions being followed.
Srisuwan Janya, a lawyer allied with the villagers' group, who also represented two non-governmental organisations advocating environment protection and against global warming, said the eight violated laws by approving the construction without a public referendum and without giving mandatory approval for the setup of an independent body to study the projects.
The judges ruled in the afternoon that, in the first petition, the villagers failed to provide information on when exactly the construction would begin and end; and in the second petition, the court would wait for the eight to submit their case to the court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)