The 'Thaksingate' verdict is a victory against AMLO
The 'Thaksingate' verdict is a victory against AMLO
The Nation, Bangkok
The Administrative Court handed down a historic ruling on Monday, and the much-anticipated verdict on the "Thaksingate" scandal was delivered in the most unequivocal manner. The Anti-Money Laundering Office, the court said, carried out an illegal probe into the bank transactions of journalists critical of the government, and the investigation infringed on civil rights. Considering the political implications of the case, which rocked the administration a few months ago, the court's ruling stands as a barometer of the progress of the country's checks-and-balances mechanism.
Nation Multimedia Group's senior editors were the plaintiffs in this case. Their petition was filed with the Administrative Court in April following news leaks that AMLO had ordered banks to give it transaction data of the editors and their family members. The legal action was taken because we believed AMLO was being used as a political tool, that the senior journalists were being intimidated or discriminated against because of their criticism of the prime minister, and that nothing they had done was in violation of the AMLO law.
As the directly affected party, we would only like to put the court opinions here for the record. Judge Wisanu Waranyu ruled that the steps taken by AMLO were illegal because the law did not empower its information director, Sihanart Prayoonrat, to order banks to hand over the transaction data of the editors and those close to them, nor did the law empower AMLO Secretary-General Peeraphan Prempooti to assign Sihanart to take such action.
Only AMLO's transaction committee can initiate such a probe, the court noted. By keeping the committee in the dark, both Sihanart and Peeraphan broke the law.
But the court went beyond that and touched upon the very heart of the issue: Was it an abuse of state power?
The court said that apart from failing to abide by AMLO's established procedures, Sihanart based his "suspicion" about the journalists purely on an anonymous leaflet which vaguely accused them of money laundering.
"Anonymous leaflets must be treated carefully with the fairest of minds because they could be used to smear people," Judge Wisanu said. "Worse is the possibility of anonymous leaflets being [fabricated] to justify the abuse of power. This would be a danger to the rights and liberty of the people."
The court noted that Sihanart had pursued the investigation despite the fact that a check on the AMLO's own database turned up nothing to back the charges made in the leaflet. Grounds for suspicion "must come from the 'outside'," ruled the judge, "not from the personal feelings of the enforcers of the law."
The ruling followed another judge's advocacy statement on the case. Last Thursday Judge Chaidej Tantiwes, acting under the unique checks-and-balances rules of the Administrative Court, declared AMLO's move unlawful and urged the court to revoke the transaction probe. He stressed that as the AMLO law can affect civil rights and liberty, it requires the most discreet and unambiguous enforcement.
"For the administrative branch to exercise power or carry out activities which could affect individuals' rights, the action must be carried out under clear-cut laws, and invocation of those laws must be done unequivocally," the judge said.
The court's message is clear. AMLO's power is a double-edged sword, so those who use it must be honest and extra careful.
There has been an argument that those who have nothing to hide should not be worried. But the real point of this case is that if we condone groundless, politically-motivated probes into our lives, we will in effect endorse the idea of a police state.
The fight against the AMLO, therefore, is much more than a fight to guard figures in a bank account.