Charoen Wat-aksorn, together with the Bo Nok-Hin Krud villagers, had been struggling against the power plant project of the Gulf Power Generation Company in Prachuab Kiri Khan Province.  In the end, the government had to halt the project.  Then he and the villagers joined together in a struggle against a business which had trespassed on public land to build shrimp farms.  This campaign was to protect the collective rights of the villagers.

On the night of 21 June 2004 at around 10.00 pm, Charoen was shot dead by gunmen at the Bo Nok intersection after he got off a bus and was heading into the village.   

At first, we were led to believe that there had been some progress in the case after five suspects were arrested.  Two of them, Mr. Saneh Lekluan and Mr. Prachuap Hinkaew, stated that they were the culprits but did not speak about the person that had hired them to kill Charoen.   

The police later arrested two politicians who were brothers and a local lawyer. The case then was transferred to the Department of Special Investigation (DSI). The father of the two politicians was later arrested but there was widespread criticism at the lack of development in the investigation.  The gunmen remained in prison, while the three other suspects were set free.

On 21 March 2006, before the hearing of witnesses began, Mr. Prachuap was found dead in prison.  It was alleged that he died from a bacterial infection.  As the court was hearing witness testimony, on 3 August 2006, Mr. Saneh was also found dead.

These incidents led many to think the case was increasingly suspicious because of the mysterious deaths of the two gunmen while they were detained in prison.

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has been raising queries and calling for the release of information regarding the deaths of the two hitmen and those behind them involved in the killing of Charoen Wat-aksorn, the environmental activist.  The Commission also raised suspicions at the failure to perform an autopsy on the two gunmen even though they died in prison.  This gives rise to grave suspicions about the real cause of death of the gunmen and the implications for the strength of the prosecution of those who ordered the murder of Charoen.

On 9 August 2006, the Bangkok Post reported that the director of the prison hospital said in an interview that Mr. Saneh did not show any sign of malaria before his death.  Many are also suspicious that the two gunmen died within a few months of the each other while the trial was taking place.  There had earlier been statements by the relatives of the gunmen that they did not think that the two would come out of prison alive.

The supporters of Charoen and human rights organizations called for an autopsy of Mr. Saneh by the Central Institute of Forensic Science or other related agencies in addition to one by the Royal Thai Police and Department of Corrections.  There have still been no reports of further investigations. The deaths of the two men raise questions regarding standards of witness protection in Thailand.  The current witness protection law does not include suspects who are being detained.  Detainees and former detainees who talked to AHRC said that murder in prisons can easily be reported as natural deaths from illness.

The other three suspects who were arrested later are not the real mastermind behind the killing. It is believed that the person who ordered Charoen’s murder is still at loose in the Bo Nok area as if nothing has happened!  

Prachatai had the opportunity to interview Korn-uma Pongnoi, the widow of Charoen and the President of the Rak Bo Nok Group on the 4^th anniversary of the murder of Charoen Wat-aksorn.

What has been happening in the case of Charoen Wat-aksorn?

21 June 2008 is the 4^th anniversary of his murder. We can say that the court proceedings are very slow. The suspects that were arrested are in court. Now the case is in the court of first instance. The questioning of the witnesses for the prosecution is endless.  The DSI once said that they would expand the investigation, but we are not seeing any kind of development.

Can you explain who has been arrested?

All together five suspects were arrested.  The first person arrested was the gunmen who shot Charoen.  There was an eyewitness who saw the shooting at the temple pavilion.  The first gunman arrested was Mr. Saneh Lekluan.  The second was Mr. Prachuap Hinkaew.  During the interrogation, reference was made to Mr. Thanu Hinkaew, who is a lawyer and also the third defendent. After that, Mr. Manot Hinkaew, a Prachuap Kiri Khan Provincial Councillor and the brother of Mr. Thanu Hinkaew gave himself up to the police. This was the outcome from the earlier interrogation by the police.

At this point, the details of the interrogation process were recorded on video by the police.  Mr. Saneh Lekluan and Mr. Prachuap Hinkaew implicated Mr.  Thanu Hinkaew as involved in planning the murder at a gas station where Mr. Saneh lives.  It is the same station owned by Kamnan Jua Hinkaew, who is Mr. Thanu’s father. Mr. Thanu also drove Mr. Prachuap Hinkaew (who is also his relative and stayed at his house) to meet with Mr. Saneh.

After that, we demanded that the case be investigated by the DSI as we were starting to see irregularities.  We noticed that there was an attempt to make this a case of personal conflict by eliminating those related to the case from the picture.  In reality, the death of Charoen is a murder which had been planned by a large number of people.  In the initial investigation by the police, there was an attempt to frame the case as motivated by personal hatred, claiming that a gunman was waiting to kill Charoen without knowing that Charoen was coming back from Bangkok.  The reason was given that Charoen had once insulted the killer’s mother.

We later also found out that the telephone conversation that was recorded formally was not included in the case.  Copies of the telephone calls among the suspects were removed as well.

After the case was transferred to the DSI, what progress has there been? 

What the DSI could do was to conduct further investigations after the arrest of Mr. Jua Hinkaew, who is the father of Mr. Thanu Hinkaew and Mr. Manot Hinkaew (the Provincial Councillor). This was an outcome from the investigation tracing the gun.  Mr. Saneh claimed that the gun he used had been stolen by Mr. Jua from a police officer named as Police Senior Sergeant Major Chokchai Tadsee, who has now retired.  He pawned his government gun which had been issued to him in his safe-keeping.

In fact we did not want to hurry or rush the officials to bring the case to court, because we mentioned at the start that we wanted the investigation and the results to go as far as possible.  The DSI claimed that it was necessary to interview all the suspects within 84 days of their detention.  We told them that if they were so hurried with the work, we felt that the evidence would not be as comprehensive as it could be. We were worried that the prosecution case might be weak and that the suspects could go free even though they are the ones who committed the crime.

It appears that they claimed that they must put the suspects in jail according to the law.  We on the other hand wondered why, since there was no huge progress regarding the case yet, it was necessary for all this rush if they were taking the case seriously.  They told us it was alright as they would interrogate the witnesses later after the suspects were put in prison.

Do you still insist that Charoen’s murder is related to conflicts with capitalists who have influence?

We believe in the fact that Charoen never had any personal problems with anyone.  He did not gamble.  We can say that he did not bring any harm to anyone, apart from the conflict with the capitalists. He opposed the interests of the investor groups and gangsters with influence.  The long struggle against the power plant which resulted in victory led to huge losses for the investors as the plant could not be built, especially for the influential group who is now being charged for ordering the murder of Charoen.

The influential group in the province worked for the power plant investors during the election.  This is the group that is mixed up in encroaching on a large amount of public land.

Although, the case is now in the hands of the prosecutor in court, has it progressed much?

We have been following the case so far.  Although the process is delayed because of all kinds of factors, we still believe that it can still be solved.  After four years, we still say the same thing as in the first year after Charoen’s murder, that the case is not going anywhere.  For the court procedure, we state that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’.

Until today, although four years have passed, not all witnesses have been questioned.  The most recent incident was last 12-13 June when police and DSI staff were questioned as witnesses.  But this working procedure is not something we can have faith in.  There is no real intention behind it, especially on the public prosecutor’s side. 

We understand the difficulties of the investigators, both DSI staff and police officers, as they do not work only on this case.  However, they should call upon the witnesses to attempt to remember the events, as it happened four years back.  This is a procedure that the prosecutor has the power to follow and should follow.

The prosecutor who is working on this case, I have to say that he is not with it and has not done his homework.  During questioning, witnesses say things slowly.  Some can remember while others cannot.  But they are trying to forget about this case.  When they start, they go straight into examination because the public prosecutor hasn’t done any homework on the case.

How do you see the progress in the prosecution?

The work that the first prosecutor did was greatly appreciated.  We can see from his work that he was responsible and had done his preparation.  He was truthful to his vocation.  However, after the prosecutor was changed or after the restructuring of the persons in charge of the case, we see the views and the way that officials in the justice system think.

What do you feel toward the two suspected gunmen who died in prison?

The two suspects at the time of their death were only suspects.  I am still questioning what is the practice in the justice procedure for protecting suspects?  How is it possible that both gunmen would die of illness while in prison?  Today, we have high technology, especially medical technology.  If it is not something serious and critical, how is it possible that two young men could die from illness?

Mr. Prachuap died before Mr. Saneh in Prachuab Kiri Khan provincial jail.  When he died, the case was still in its initial stages. We could see that if the case continued in the province it might not be fair for us.  There is a weakness in the case procedure since the defendants did not have to be present at the consideration of the case, as a lawyer can represent them. This is unfair. In the system there, one of the defendants, Mr. Thanu Hinkaew, is a lawyer.  We don’t want to criticize but one thing you have to accept is that Thailand has a patron-client system in the system, especially the government system. Therefore we requested for the case to be transferred to Bangkok.

After the case was transferred, Mr. Saneh stayed at Khlong Prem Prison in Bangkok.  At the first witness hearings in Bangkok, we met Mr. Saneh and he was very strong at every hearing.  During that time, we met him very often.  In some months, we met him three times, especially from June to August 2006. We remember that we met him the last time on 21 July 2006 which was his last interrogation, before he died on 2 August.

At the time, Mr. Saneh did not look as if he was exhausted.  He only had a fever.  His lawyer announced that his client had a fever and asked for Mr. Saneh to be allowed to sit in the cells in the basement of the court.  But a villager who saw Mr. Saneh that day said that he was poisoned.

Why did the villagers believe that Mr. Saneh was poisoned?

We do not know how they could see that, because at the time, we had gone to follow the case since the villager said that Charoen’s case wasn’t a personal issue and that he didn’t have personal problems or conflicts with anyone.  At the time, I made an effort to say that it was not like the villagers said, because Mr. Saneh might have been upset and being in prison which isn’t very nice, and that gave him a fever.  But the villagers said, if you do not believe it, just wait a few days and Mr. Saneh will be dead.

It turned out that after six days, Mr. Saneh died.  It was in news.  When the court convened again on 4 August 2006 and the official from the Department of Corrections made a statement on this, the judge was surprised that he could have died because at the last hearing he was still healthy.  We were skeptical about his death.  We had to say that it was an unnatural death.

When the Department of Corrections official stated that he died from disease, it proved nothing.  It was just a statement about his condition.  The accusations that Mr. Saneh made under examination regarding the real culprits were recorded on video. Today, it’s taken a long time for the video evidence to get to court.  We’ve had to keep pushing and asking for 4 years.  The video evidence has just be brought into court although it should have been there from the start.

The final evidence that we have to bring to court, apart from the case record is the forensic evidence.  Much of it came from the autopsy done by Dr. Pornthip Rojanasunan.  This is about the bullet, the spiral marks on the bullet, bullet casing and all that, and fingerprints. It is really difficult to follow this evidence.

Do you still have any hope in the justice process?

When asked whether we are still hopeful with Court of Justice, we feel that we are following the case to discover and to understand the legal process more than to see what the details are.  Years back, Charoen once told us that if he was murdered in the struggle, the villagers should bring his body to Government House.  He believed that justice will never happen.  Back then, after Charoen was murdered, we still felt that we should parade his body around Government House.

We will have to experience and prove whether in the end what Charoen said is the truth. 

What lessons have you learned for future struggles?

After our years of follow-up on the case, we have to discuss at the 4^th anniversary of Charoen’s murder whether we want to end our pursuit of this case or whether we should continue our pursuit of justice to the end so that we can explain to society that what the legal system is like.

Charoen once told us that if his body is not cremated in front of the government house, justice might not happen.  If I remember correctly when Charoen was murdered, we still believe what Charoen said.

In previous cases many struggles with the justice system, both victims and those accused of crimes in our struggle, we come to the question of what the death of Charoen or his corpse teaches us about our society.  We need to evaluate and discussed among ourselves how we want this process to continue.

Translated by Pokpong Lawansiri