Advocate judge tells court legal procedures adhered to in Thaksin passport revocation case

[webfact]

Advocate judge tells court legal procedures adhered to in Thaksin passport revocation case

By Kesinee Tangkaew 
The Nation

 

Fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra poses for photo with his children in Singapore last week. //Photo from Ink Shinawatra/Facebook

 

The advocate judge in the passport-revocation case concerning self-exiled former premier Thaksin Shinawatra made the closing statement in the case on Tuesday.

 

He insisted that lawful procedures had been followed, and that the Consular Affairs Department’s regulation to issue or revoke a Thai individual’s passport if the person were found to have acted in contravention of the regulation had been adhered to. 

 

The judge also said such revocation had not violated Thaksin’s rights, as claimed.

 

The Supreme Administrative Court heard the statement to close the case from the judge, following a closing statement from Thaksin’s lawyer, and will next consider its verdict.

 

Thaksin had filed an administrative petition to the Administrative Court, asking it to rule whether the department and the Foreign Affairs Ministry’s permanent secretary had issued an unlawful order in revoking his two passports on May 26, 2015.

 

The Administrative Court on September 27, 2016 dismissed his petition, citing that the department’s regulation was lawful and that concerned authorities could revoke an individual’s passport if that person were found to be acting against the conditions set under the regulation, including committing crimes, stirring up public disorder, or posting threats while overseas. 

 

This would be without depriving the person of their rights under the 2007 charter, the court stated.

 

Thaksin then filed another petition to the Supreme Administrative Court via his lawyer, citing the same reason: that the revocation regulation was not a law that entitled the authorities to deprive a person of their rights.

 

Delivering Tuesday’s closing statement from the plaintiff, Wattana Tiangkul – Thaksin’s lawyer – cited the current Constitution as guaranteeing the rights of a Thai individual both within and outside the country. 

 

As such, the order has violated his client’s rights as guaranteed under the prevailing charter, he said.

 

The Supreme Administrative Court will convene a panel to consider the case, before ruling on it. 

 

No date has yet been confirmed for the ruling.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30339824

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-02-28

[Baerboxer]

 

Wonder which nationality he's claiming to be when traveling?

 

How's the case against his Number 1 Cousin the former Foreign Minister proceeding for illegally issuing the passports in the first place?

 

And isn't little Oak in the middle of a court case for fraud/money laundering? Clearly not considered a potential flight risk then.

 

All a big pantomime joke - only not so funny for the Thai people who pay for it all.

[Oziex1]

So they weren't adhered to then. 

[drchuckknisley]

Thaksin can just go to a caribbean island (St Kitts) and buy a home and get a new Sk. Kitts passport for life..... a 300,000 Y+USD investment.................big deal 

[kolkolkol]

On 2/28/2018 at 12:23 PM, Baerboxer said:

 

Wonder which nationality he's claiming to be when traveling?

 

How's the case against his Number 1 Cousin the former Foreign Minister proceeding for illegally issuing the passports in the first place?

 

And isn't little Oak in the middle of a court case for fraud/money laundering? Clearly not considered a potential flight risk then.

 

All a big pantomime joke - only not so funny for the Thai people who pay for it all.

montenegro pp?

https://antithaksin.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/thaksin-carries-6-passports/

[kolkolkol]

When the court passed the guilty verdict, they did not think to impound his thai pp? Just like they think roads i the country is safe because all thais most religiously follow traffic rules. Or did he escape using a different pp?