A flurry of activity at the Supreme Court followed Justice Ministry permanent secretary Charan Phakdithanakul's bombshell disclosure that two senior Supreme Court judges who serve on the Constitution Tribunal were approached by two senior government officials and asked to rule in favour of the Thai Rak Thai Party in the electoral fraud case against it. According to Charan, the alleged bribe offers were rejected and the Constitution Tribunal went on to disband former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's party and bar Thai Rak Thai Party executives from seeking public office for five years.

But that did not stop Supreme Court President Panya Thanomrod from ordering top judges to thoroughly investigate the supposedly botched attempt at swaying the Constitution Tribunal's decision in the high-profile case. This was as it should be because anyone with the temerity to even try to pay off Supreme Court judges for whatever reason must be exposed, prosecuted and then subjected to the severest punishment provided by the law if found guilty.

The order to form the Supreme Court's investigative committee, headed by Supreme Court Vice-President Wirat Limwichai, which was signed by Panya yesterday came after last week's decision by the National Counter Corruption Commission (NCCC) to launch a preliminary probe to see if there were grounds for graft proceedings against the two senior government officials allegedly involved in the attempt to rig the Constitution Tribunal's ruling.

The NCCC took up the bribery case after having received a piece of evidence in the form of a signed note in which bribes were offered to two members of the Constitution Tribunal. According to the permanent secretary for justice, the two senior officials acted as middlemen in the bribery attempt.

The Supreme Court president must see to it that the three-man investigation team be allowed to interview all relevant people including the two Supreme Court judges who are said to have been approached by the senior officials. Indeed, if it turns out that the two Supreme Court judges had actually been offered and then duly turned down the bribes as Charan claims, it is only right that those judges should now come forward and cooperate fully with the Supreme Court's investigation committee in identifying the suspects in the attempted bribery.

In a way, it is quite understandable that if it were true that Supreme Court judges who serve on the Constitutional Tribunal had been approached by people looking to pay a bribe that those judges would naturally want to keep it quiet. This is perhaps not only because they wanted to protect their reputation, but also because making such wrongdoings public before the Constitution Tribunal rendered its verdict on the Thai Rak Thai Party's electoral fraud case would affect justice in that it would influence the decisions of other members of the Tribunal.

Now that the Tribunal has made its historic decision, it's time for the truth to be made public - for justice to be done. After all, the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court - which is the most respected institution to which all in this country look as a provider of justice of the last resort - must demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that no wrongdoers in this alleged bribery scandal are protected for whatever reason. As the ultimate provider of justice, members of the judiciary must live up to the highest standard of integrity and probity.

Under previous constitutions, the interim charter and in the future constitution, judges are guaranteed absolute independence in the trial and adjudication of cases in accordance to the constitution and the law. These are hard and fast rules designed to ensure that judges are free to deliver justice without fear or favour. Such unfettered independence comes with great responsibility and should in no way preclude the need for the judiciary to be made accountable to the public in some way. Concerning these alleged bribe offers that supposedly were made to senior Supreme Court judges, the Court's investigation committee should not only find facts and report them to the Supreme Court president but it must also make public its findings with a view to ascertain that the whole fact-finding process has been conducted in a transparent and straightforward manner. The judiciary's credibility and reputation for incorruptibility depends on it.