JUSTICE Minister General Paiboon Koomchaya has suggested that the National Anti-Corruption Comm-ission (NACC) step up and clarify its consideration to withdraw a court case involving the violent crackdown on yellow-shirt protesters in 2008.

He wanted to quickly clear public misunderstanding, which could stir opposition and cast a shadow over the upcoming referendum.

General Paiboon said the case was a big issue and in public interest. If people were not taken into confidence on the issues, the case could backfire, causing the aggrieved parties to stage protests, which could escalate.

“The agency should urgently explain [the background to the court case] to people. If not, there could be some impact [on the upcoming referendum],” said Paiboon.

People’;s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) protesters were violently dispersed outside Parliament in October 2008, leading to the NACC charging the then prime minister and his deputy and two senior police chiefs of alleged malfeasance.

Two people were killed and more than 300 injured, including police.

Those charged included former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat, General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, former national police chief Pol General Patcharawat Wongsuwan and former Bangkok police chief Pol Lt-General Suchart Muankaew.

The case is with the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders.

The defendants recently submitted additional evidence to the NACC, asking it to withdraw the court case.

One of the defendants, Patcharawat, is Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan’s brother. The deputy PM reportedly backed new NACC chairman Watcharapol Prasarnrajkit, leading to speculation by some observers that nepotism could be at play.

Watcharapol said earlier he was aware of the speculation and as such was handling the case with care. The NACC set up a panel to consider the case, which has not yet reached any conclusion.

The PAD’s ex-leader and lawyer, as well as some relatives, yesterday went to the NACC to submit a petition, demanding it review its consideration to drop its lawsuit.

The PAD’s lawyer, Nitithorn Lamlue, claimed that the NACC’s legal powers did not give the NACC the authority to do so. Article 86 under the act also stipulated that any charges already with the court – or are having a court verdict delivered – could not be withdrawn by the NACC, he said.

Nitithorn said if the defendants wished to submit additional evidence, it would be more appropriate if they went directly to the court.

Nitithorn threatened the NACC with a lawsuit if it went ahead with its decision. The PAD, he added, would keep a close eye on the NACC chairman, and would ask the court to allow its representatives to attend court hearings.

“The case is with the court, and that means that there are grounds for prosecution. So, don’t derail the justice system, or the government could be in trouble,” Nitithorn warned, adding the PAD would also see whether it needed to file another petition asking for justice from the court.

Nitithorn said to make the issue transparent, the NACC should reveal the additional evidence submitted to it by the defendants so that the public could learn what was actually sought by the defendants and whether it was legally valid for the NACC to reconsider the case, as claimed.

Former PAD leader Panthep Puapongpan said the PAD would file another petition asking the government to help enforce Article 44 to block the NACC’s move to reconsider the case – if the NACC insisted on pursuing it. He claimed that a number of damaged parties in the incident had not yet received justice, and he did not want to see this backfire.

He said the group’s leaders still talked to one another and would review renewing the group’s action if the NACC went ahead with the case.

“Don’t force us to get back together to be against you,” said Panthep.

Watcharapol, meanwhile, insisted the NACC had authority to proceed with the consideration following its panel’s legal studies. But so far, it had not yet proceeded with it, having only taken evidence from the defendants to determine how to proceed further.

Watcharapol said it was a good suggestion for the NACC to review the consideration – but the agency would take public benefit, as well as justice for all concerned, into account in order to proceed and decide on it. Watcharapol said once the decision was made, he would hold a press conference.