The organic law on criminal procedures for political office holders stipulates that the statute of limitations does not cover the period of time indicted politicians flee the country after their cases are brought to court – a tactic adopted by many politicians charged with irregularities or malfeasance.

The law, required by the new Constitution, also allows the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division for Political Office Holders to hear cases against indicted politicians in absentia. However, there has been concern that this practice may go against international principles.

After three hours of deliberation, the bill yesterday sailed easily past the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) in the second and the third readings, with 176-0 votes in support and three abstentions.

The law is subject to review if any involved agencies or the Constitutional Court say it is unconstitutional, before it is forwarded to the Cabinet.

The bill is among 10 organic laws that need to be written to complement the new Constitution ahead of the next general election. It involves the court procedures for political office holders, and aims to address issues such as failure to bringing defenders to court or culprits to justice due to their political and economic power.

The vetting committee had written that cases would proceed in court regardless of the defender’s absence but raised questions on whether it was an infringement of rights.

NLA member Thani Onla-eiad said it has always been a practice in Thailand that the trial must take place with the defender present, in line with an international principle. The trial in absentia was only allowed on the defender’s request, according to the criminal procedures for the political office holders Act, he said.

The vetting committee’s chairman, Pattarasak Wannasang, explained that as the bill was especially for political office holders, it could be different from normal criminal laws.

The crimes committed by political office holders were more systemic and it was harder to accumulate evidence, the legislator said. In addition, the defenders were more likely to succeed in absconding, he said, resulting in the case being interrupted or paused and expired, leading to failure in bringing the culprit to justice. “Normal procedure with the presence of the defender could work with normal people, but not with those who are politically and economically powerful,” he said.

Pattarasak said that such a practice was not against international law. If the authority failed to bring the defender to court, it meant that the defender gives up their rights to stand trial. In addition, he pointed out that the defender could send a lawyer to represent their interests in court even though they were absent.

Somchai Sawaengkan, a spokesman for the vetting committee, said yesterday that the law was not intended for any politician in particular, as it would be enforced on political office holders of all levels and members of independent organisations as well.

Udom Rathamarit, a member of the Constitution Drafting Commission responsible for writing the original draft of the bill and who also sat on the vetting committee, said that the legislation should help create equality. It must find a way to get around people who abscond and reject justice, he said.

Besides allowing trials in absentia, the bill has other changes to criminal procedures against political office holders such as the adoption of the inquisitorial system, which encourages the court to investigate and find evidence against defenders rather than allowing them to prove their innocence.

KEY POINTS

Stipulations in the draft organic law on the procedure for criminal cases against political office holders.

– The count of a case’s statute of limitation stops when an indicted politician escapes, after the case is brought to court against him or her.

– The court may accept a case even if the indicted politician is not present before the court after being summoned.

– The court will issue an arrest warrant for a defendant who fails to show up after being summoned by the court.

– The court may start hearing the case against the defendant in absentia, three months after the person’s escape.

– Provisions under the organic law have no impact on cases already filed and can proceed as before the promulgation of the law.