Pakornwut confronted the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), demanding full disclosure of all investigation evidence in the Saksayam case, questioning whether it matches or differs from that of the Constitutional Court, and pointing out clear irregularities. He raised questions about possible links to the 'Blue Regime'.Tags: [Anti-Corruption, Legal Investigation, Political Controversy, Constitutional Court, Blue Regime]
On 8 May 2026 at the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) office, Pakornwut Udompipatakul, party-list MP of the People’s Party, submitted a letter exercising his rights under Section 9 of the 1997 Official Information Act. He requested to inspect and obtain copies of information as a previous complainant in the case accusing Saksayam Chidchob of intentionally concealing assets related to Buricharoen Partnership, a complaint earlier dismissed by the NACC.Tags: [NACC, Official Information Act, Political Complaint, Asset Concealment]
Pakornwut specified that the documents he requested include: 1) the report on fact-finding and collection of all documentary evidence in the complaint case; 2) notification of charges against Saksayam Chidchob regarding the complaint; 3) Saksayam’s explanations submitted to the NACC committee concerning the complaint; 4) opinions of all NACC officials responsible for the complaint; 5) minutes of NACC committee meetings related to the complaint; and 6) the committee’s rulings or resolutions on the case.Tags: [Legal Documents, Evidence, NACC Proceedings, Complaint Investigation]
This is not the first time such documents have been requested. Around 2018–2019, Veera Somkhumkit and The Matter news agency had similarly requested these documents from the NACC. The NACC initially refused disclosure. Subsequently, both parties appealed to the Information Disclosure Adjudication Committee, which ruled (case no. S.K.334/2019) that disclosure of investigation information, once completed, does not hinder fact-finding by NACC officials or committees. Transparency at the investigation stage enhances trustworthiness and accountability of the NACC.Tags: [Information Disclosure, Legal Precedents, Transparency, NACC Accountability]
Pakornwut further stated that despite this, the NACC office still refused to disclose the information. The matter escalated to the administrative court, where the NACC continued to delay until 2023, when the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s ruling ordering full disclosure to the requester. The key point was that information previously classified as confidential had its secrecy status revoked.Tags: [Administrative Court, Supreme Court, Information Disclosure, Legal Delay]
Therefore, Pakornwut expects the NACC not to invoke the Personal Data Protection Act, classified official information laws, or any other excuses that could obstruct its work. Both the Information Disclosure Adjudication Committee and the rulings of the lower and Supreme Administrative Courts have established precedents allowing such information to be disclosed. He hopes to receive these documents promptly to promote transparency within the NACC and strengthen public oversight of independent agencies.Tags: [Transparency, Legal Expectations, Public Oversight, Independent Agencies]
Pakornwut added that this case is certainly irregular. As one of the complainants, he has reviewed all evidence submitted to the Constitutional Court. Although he does not base his stance solely on the Constitutional Court’s ruling, he wants to know whether the evidence used by the NACC matches that of the Constitutional Court. If some evidence was used by the Constitutional Court but not by the NACC, questions must be raised about why the NACC excluded potentially crucial evidence in its investigation.Tags: [Case Irregularities, Evidence Comparison, Constitutional Court, Investigation Integrity]
Since the allegation concerns submitting a false asset declaration, the key issue is Saksayam’s intent in 2019 when filing his asset declaration—whether omitting assets related to the partnership was intentional concealment. Proving anyone’s intent at a specific time requires examining behavior before the event. Thus, the NACC must prove Saksayam’s intent as of the 2019 declaration date. Actions after that cannot retroactively define his intent at that time. Therefore, dismissing the complaint on this basis is entirely unreasonable.Tags: [Legal Intent, Asset Declaration, Complaint Dismissal, Evidence Standards]
Pakornwut also raised questions about the independence of independent agencies, noting public awareness of the so-called 'Blue Regime,' which is linked to various cases, including Senate vote rigging. Since the Senate holds authority to appoint independent agencies, it raises concerns whether this regime facilitates control of the country by certain groups, undermining the rule of law.Tags: [Agency Independence, Political Influence, Blue Regime, Rule of Law]