A Thai court on Thursday delivered a significant verdict in the long-running case of the 2015 bombing at the Erawan Shrine in Bangkok, acquitting a Thai woman who had been charged with involvement in the attack. The bombing, which claimed the lives of 20 people and injured 120, shocked Thailand and the world. The woman, Wanna Suansan, was one of three individuals apprehended out of 17 suspects who authorities believed were responsible for the devastating blast at the popular tourist destination.
The Bangkok Southern Criminal Court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to directly link Wanna to the bombing. This acquittal comes as a major development in the case, raising questions about the prosecution’s ability to definitively prove her involvement. The two other suspects currently facing trial, both ethnic Uyghurs, a Muslim minority in China facing persecution, remain in custody.
All three suspects initially faced a range of charges, including murder, attempted murder, and unlawful possession of explosive materials. The two Uyghur suspects, Yusufu Mieraili and Bilal Mohammad, were apprehended shortly after the bombing on August 17, 2015. Wanna, however, was arrested later, voluntarily returning to Thailand from Turkey in 2017 after being named as a suspect.
The Thai authorities initially attributed the bombing to a revenge plot orchestrated by a people-smuggling gang whose operations had been disrupted by police crackdowns. However, suspicions also arose regarding the potential involvement of Uyghur separatists, angered by Thailand’s repatriation of scores of Uyghurs to China in July 2015. This theory gained traction due to the shrine’s popularity among Chinese tourists and the wider context of Uyghur persecution in China.
While the evidence against the two Uyghur suspects, including video footage, DNA analysis, and other findings, appeared stronger, the case against Wanna was largely circumstantial. She was accused of leasing accommodation for the alleged bombers, and police discovered gunpowder, fertilizer, and other bomb-making materials in an apartment leased under her name. However, the judge ultimately determined that the prosecution failed to provide compelling evidence that Wanna was present at the bombing site, facilitated the suspects’ presence, or aided their escape. Furthermore, there was no proof of her contact with the suspects or assistance in acquiring the explosives found in the apartment.
The judge acknowledged the possibility that Wanna might have assisted in finding accommodation for her husband’s friends or acquaintances, given his Turkish nationality. However, prosecutors were unable to establish a direct connection between her husband and the other suspects, who also included individuals with Turkish ties. It is important to note that Wanna’s husband remains a suspect in the case, but he is not currently in custody.
Following the verdict, a visibly relieved Wanna expressed her happiness and gratitude to the court, stating that she had been awaiting this day for seven years since her return to Thailand. She acknowledged the hardship she had endured during that time, lamenting the sense of injustice and the impact on her family.
Meanwhile, the trial of the two Uyghur suspects, Yusufu Mieraili and Bilal Mohammad, accused of being the primary perpetrators of the bombing, has faced repeated delays due to challenges in finding suitable translators. Their lawyer, Chuchart Kanpai, indicated that their case is still in the witness examination stage, with the next court date scheduled for March. The two men, who entered not guilty pleas at the start of their trial in 2016, have alleged mistreatment and torture during their detention. Police believe that Mieraili detonated the bomb after Bilal, also known as Adem Karadag, left a backpack containing the explosive device at the shrine.
The acquittal of Wanna Suansan adds a new layer of complexity to the Erawan Shrine bombing case. While the direct connection between her and the bombing remains unclear, the trial highlights the difficulty of obtaining conclusive evidence in such intricate investigations, particularly when dealing with international connections and multiple suspects. The ongoing trial of the two Uyghur suspects continues to hold significant implications for understanding the motivations behind the attack and ensuring justice for the victims.
