Thailand's Undemocratic Media Muzzling: Nation Wins Key Battle Over AMLO by Phairath Khampha 22 June 2002 An Administrative Court judge in Thailand on June 21, 2002 declared unlawful the Anti Money Laundering Office investigation into the banking records of four Nation Multimedia Group editors and urged the court to revoke the probe. Judge Chaidej Tantiwess' advocacy statement, made under the unique check-and-balance rules of the Administrative Court, set the stage for its final verdict, to be made by a panel of other judges. Chaidej's opinions had no legal bearing on the final verdict. In all previous cases of the Administrative Court, however, the final rulings toed the lines of opinions of the so-called "neutral" judges. This was seen as a victory against the country's prime minister's increasingly dictatorial tactics of curbing freedom of speech when opinions were against him. Chaidej ruled that the AMLO had overstepped its jurisdiction in pursuing the unwarranted probe, which was seen by ordinary Thais as undemocratic media intimidation. He said an order by AMLO information director Sihanart Prayoonrat for banks to give transaction data of the editors and their family members was a wrongful act. The judge rejected Sihanart's argument that the order was allowed under Articles 38 and 40 of the AMLO law. The judge said such an order for banking information must be given by AMLO's so-called transaction committee only. Regarding claims that Sihanart was being empowered by AMLO secretary-general Peeraphan Prempooti, the court said there was no evidence Peeraphan received prior consent from the transaction committee. Peeraphan possibly gave the order to Sihanart as a superior, which in this case was not allowed under the AMLO law, the judge said. Peeraphan had been told by Thailand's prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, to lean on The Nation after it published articles that showed the government was functioning improperly, the country's rampant corruption had not been curtailed and that many of Thaksin's election promises were quite empty. "For the administrative branch to exercise power or carry out activities which could affect individuals' rights and liberty, the action must be carried out under clear-cut laws, and invocation of those laws must be done unequivocally," the judge said. He said the AMLO had not been empowered to harass the press and its two officials were accountable for any violations incurred. "Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is not recognised as a state official under the administrative law, hence staying outside the court's purview," he added. Following leaks about the AMLO investigation targeting journalists critical of the government, the four NMG editors, led by Suthichai Yoon, petitioned in March 2002 for the Administrative Court review on the matter. The four complainants had also sought and received an injunction to suspend the investigation pending the judicial review. In their complaint, the four named the AMLO, its secretary general Peeraphan, his information director Sihanart and Thaksin as defendants responsible for the probe. Presiding Judge Wisanu Waranyu had just concluded the hearing of evidence submitted by the two disputing parties and on June 21 proceeded to commence the review of pertinent legal issues. Under the court procedures, Wisanu had the discretion to listen to the opinions of his fellow judges although he was not obliged to incorporate them into his verdict. Based on past administrative cases, a judge's advocacy statement was often the harbinger of an upcoming decision, however. Arguing for the complainants, Chaidej said the dispute over the AMLO investigation fell under the court's purview although any ruling could not be enforced on the political overseer Thaksin. Even though the complainants contended that Thaksin had ordered the investigation, the court could not adjudicate his violations because of lack of mandate, Chaidej said. Regarding the investigation itself and the conduct of AMLO officers, the advocacy judge said the money-laundering law did not empower the AMLO to conduct "wild" probes beyond its six prescribed duties. He said Peeraphan and Sihanart had cited a wrong provision to back up the investigation and also wrongly interpreted the law as empowering them to check on government critics. Meanwhile, the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed the lower court's injunction against the investigation, citing possible irreparable damage if the probe were to proceed.