Graft watchdog’s decision against her ‘politically motivated’, Senator Porntip says

“This issue is politically motivated. They want to find someone to take the blame. I was not involved in any irregularity, but I am not sure that I can fight [this case]. People behind it want to destroy me,” Khunying Porntip said in a television interview.

The decision by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) on Wednesday was influenced by people who want to blame her for the procurement of fake GT200 and Alpha 6 bomb detectors, she said.

A person behind the NACC’s decision had “slandered” her during a debate in the post-coup National Legislative Assembly in 2015, she said, without naming the individual. “At present, [that person] is in NACC circles, so I am aware that I will have no chance [in this case].”

Porntip said she had learned from a public prosecutor that she was the only high-ranking official to be indicted even though more than state agencies were involved in the purchase.
 

On Wednesday, NACC commissioners voted unanimously to proceed with legal action against Porntip in her capacity as then-director of the Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS), and a number of other officials in the agency.

Between 2007 and 2009, 11 state agencies procured the fake bomb detectors for a combined price of 683 million baht. The CIFS made two purchases – seven GT200s and two Alpha 6s – while Porntip was its director.

She said on Friday that the NACC dealt with the case slowly and failed to allow her to explain her side or provide information.

The alleged offence took place in 2008 but the NACC only set up an investigative subcommittee in November 2020, which charged her and her colleagues in February 2021.

“Between 2020 and 2021, I was never asked for information or summoned to provide information,” she said.

After the NACC panel charged her in February 2021, she was given until July of that year to submit information. She said it was difficult for her to collect evidence due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

No corruption was involved in her agency’s purchase and it had sued the company involved for compensation, she said.

“The NACC never allowed me to explain. I don’t know what grounds they based their decision on,” she said.

“I learned from a public prosecutor that the Central Institute of Forensic Science was the only agency where the top official was indicted,” she said, reiterating that she believed someone had influenced its decision.