Somlak 2nd case : Posted facebook criticizing a gold mine in Pichit province

3 October 2016

Preliminary examination

At 10.20 am. The judge came to the courtroom and started examining the plaintiff witness, Cherdsak Attha-arun, a 60-year-old, gave his testimony. Plaintiff's witness as an executive director of AKARA mining company. Prior to this date, he submitted his written testimony already.

The defense attorney began their cross examination by asking for Cherdsak’s work history. In response, Cherdsak stated that he was first employed by the Department of Mineral Resources, which at the time, was under supervision of Ministry of Industry (for 28 years); Now, the Department of Mineral Resources is under the supervision of Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. He, then quit his job at the Department of Mineral Resources and worked for The Gems and Jewellery Institute for three years. After that, he worked at Thungkahabour company for two years and now he works for AKARA Resources company for five years.

Cherdsak said that AKARA resources operated the gold mine in Pichit province since 2001. There had to be guarantees that the mining operation would not cause any significant environmental damage. The company received a license for operating the mine which cover approximately 3,700 acre not including a buffer zone. If the buffer zone is included, the total area is about 6,000-7,000 acre. Within the radius of 5 kilometers, there are 15-17 villages with a recorded population of 10,000 people (although in actual fact, there are between 6,000-7,000 people because some of them have moved to work in Bangkok). In addition, although the nearby area has a temple and a school, there are no water sources in close proximity to the gold mine. This is because the water source is located a little over the gold mine and another water source is located to the south of the gold mine at a distance of 1 kilometer. 

To safeguard the health of its employees, the company conducts a health check-up for all its employees at least once annually and transfer workers who have fallen ill due to contamination to the hospital. Other employees in the plant are required to undergo a urine and blood test to trace the presence of toxic substances. In these health checks on employees, the company has never discovered an abnormal toxic substances and levels in the employees. These health check-ups within the radius of 5 kilometers of AKARA’s gold mine has begun since 2013 due to the observations listed in the report of Environment and Health Impact Assessment (EHIA). During the first round of health check-ups, arsenic and manganese were found in the urine and bloodstreams of the locals. These individuals consist of 25-30 percent of the local populace located within a radius of 5 kilometers from the plant.

Ten years ago, before Cherdsak started working at AKARA, there were some complaints about health and environmental degradation, but a review by state agencies found a conclusion that was inconsistent with the complaints. While these complaints regarding   AKARA were filed at Phitsanulok Court, the court dismissed the case. After Cherdsak was employed by AKARA, the complaints continued to be issued but an investigation has never found these complaints to be valid.

In 2014, local inhabitants and academics from Rangsit University filed a petition against AKARA that lead to the creation of a working group on mining impact resolution [JK1] , of which the defendants, Somlak and Smith, are part of this group. The function of the working group is to review environmental impacts from gold mining and is known as “The 5 parties Working Group” that consists of the complainer, representatives of company, academic experts, representatives of local administration in the area and including with the military personnel. In late 2015, the members of working group altered due to the shift in the provincial governor.

The defense lawyer asked Cherdsak whether the working group has the report and he answered in the negative as the Rangsit University group is in charge of conducting the report and it received academic arguments all the time. It also received collaboration from the Institute of Forensic Science and the Ministry of Justice to conduct public health check-ups in the area (which later found high levels of arsenic and manganese). However, AKARA has denied this. In 2015, the company received a letter from the Department of Industry and Minerals ordering it to carry out a public health check-up but AKARA has not conducted it yet .  As the Department of Industry and Minerals consider that local inhabitants still have a high arsenic levels in their bloodstream, it ordered AKARA to temporarily cease mining operations and commence investigations to the cause of the abnormal arsenic levels.

The grounds for this case is that the defendants published a false message on an online public space (Facebook). The Facebook message published by Somlak is false because the committee has never concluded Somlak’s statements. The plaintiff's attorney asked Somlak whether he has provided more explanations to the published statements. The accused answered that it was not his responsibility to explain the published statements and that it would be too difficult to provide an explanation to the layperson as it is highly academic and medical matter. After the defendants posted on Facebook, Cherdsak did not ask them how they received the document because he had ascertained their malicious intent from the meeting and their Facebook activities. 

The plaintiff’s attorney asked Cherdsak whether the process of health monitoring required the collection of water and soil samples from the area. Cherdsak replied that samples were collected and even though manganese and arsenic was discovered, it was the nature of the mining area before the AKARA commenced operations. But when there are reports, Akara thus strictly supervised this issue and if there are public complaints, the agency will also have to collect information and investigation. Their agency have found that the results are not different from the prior test and they have found no link between the toxic and mining operation.