MP Kamlasak Raises Justice Standards Concerns, Worried Murder Case Delays Could Compromise Evidence and Prevent Reaching Masterminds
An MP from Narathiwat has raised concerns that investigative delays in a murder case could destroy critical evidence and prevent authorities from pursuing those who ordered the crime. He cited slow progress in issuing warrants and questione
On May 3, 2025, MP Kamlasak Leewamoae from Narathiwat District 5 of the Prachanat Party expressed concern about progress in a murder investigation, warning that delays in the investigation process could lead to loss of critical evidence and obstruct the expansion of charges to those at higher levels of command.
Kamlasak noted that the case involves key issues regarding hiring or supporting criminal activity, which requires interconnected witness testimony forming a network. If proceedings are delayed, important information could fade away, risking being "edited" in ways that prevent reaching the actual perpetrators.
Although investigators have conducted additional questioning of suspects whose statements align with previous complaints, there has been no apparent progress in issuing summons or arrest warrants for additional persons involved.
Kamlasak also raised concerns about law enforcement standards in the region, pointing out that in many previous cases, information from special law interrogations has led to rapid charges, yet this case with formal complaints and clear criminal elements has proceeded slowly. This could cause society to question whether officials are applying justice equally.
Regarding digital evidence, particularly telephone communication records between involved parties, Kamlasak noted that access to such data is restricted by the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), requiring court authority or investigator approval to proceed, which may be another factor causing investigative delays.
He also raised concerns about evidence management, noting that some important documents are not directly under the case officer's responsibility but held by the central investigation unit, which could affect coordination efficiency and case continuity.
However, security sources confirmed that the case remains under collection of additional evidence, with all steps proceeding carefully within legal frameworks to ensure the case is solid and can fully enter the justice process.
This case reflects important questions about the justice process in southern border provinces regarding speed, law enforcement standards, and public confidence in whether the state can deliver justice equally, transparently, and without discrimination.
