Lawyer Uan Submits New Evidence in Saksiyam Case Against Priyadh; NACC May Never Have Investigated the Case at All
Lawyer Uan submitted new evidence to parliament supporting a petition requesting investigation into the NACC's dismissal of corruption charges against former Transport Minister Saksiyam, citing the anti-graft body may never have properly in
At 9:30 a.m. on May 12, 2025, at Parliament, Pattarapong Suphakson, known as Lawyer Uan from Buriram, submitted a letter to Priyadh Wachrasindhu, a Pheu Thai party list MP and coordinator of the opposition coalition, to aid in drafting a petition to the Parliament Speaker requesting that the court establish a committee to investigate the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) regarding its dismissal of the complaint against Saksiyam Chidchob, former Transport Minister alleged to be concealing assets.
Pattarapong stated that the NACC's decision in Saksiyam's case contradicts the facts. Key evidence includes testimony from a former prime minister and statements about "Mr. S," whom the Constitutional Court determined was a nominee, as well as financial transaction trails used for transfers. This evidence will facilitate the opposition coalition's petition to the Parliament Speaker.
Regarding public signatures, whether the target of 20,000 names is reached or not, the opposition will submit the collected signatures with their petition this May. Priyadh stated that the new evidence provided by the public would be beneficial for the petition to the Parliament Speaker, which requests the court establish an independent investigation committee to examine NACC officials under the Constitutional court mechanism, Article 236.
Whether or not public signatures reach the target, the opposition parties will proceed regardless. Current party backing includes 119 votes from Pheu Thai, over 20 from Democratic Party, 1 from Thai Loyalty Party, 1 from Free Thai Party, and approximately 10 senators.
The petition draft is expected to be completed by the end of May, while awaiting information from the NACC including relevant documents, Saksiyam's clarifications, and the NACC's position prior to the dismissal vote from last week.
Priyadh outlined three main categories for the petition to the Parliament Speaker:
Category 1: Raising questions about all facts revealed in the Constitutional Court proceedings, including stock transfers and financial trails—why the NACC failed to consider these facts, or if it did, why it did not conclude that Saksiyam intentionally filed false asset declarations or concealed assets as the Constitutional Court ruled when it removed him from office.
Category 2: Raising questions about whether the NACC thoroughly reviewed all accusations from Pakornwut Udompipatthanasukul, a Pheu Thai list MP and former deputy party leader, and other MPs who filed complaints—whether any were overlooked.
Category 3: Raising questions about whether the NACC's process from receiving the complaint to investigation followed its rules and procedures, noting that Pakornwut, as the complainant, never received any communication from the NACC and learned of the dismissal only through public announcement, which is inappropriate.
Priyadh added that in recent days he has posed a new observation as a question for the NACC and the public to consider: Did the NACC actually investigate all relevant parties before dismissing Saksiyam's case? He suspects the NACC may not have.
