Jump to content

Ombudsman to rule on the matter of PM’s incomplete oath next Tuesday


Recommended Posts

Posted

Ombudsman to rule on the matter of PM’s incomplete oath next Tuesday

 

 

PM5.jpg

 

The Ombudsman is expected to rule next Tuesday on whether Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha breached the Constitution by failing to recite the oath in full during the swearing-in ceremony in front of His Majesty the King in July, said Mr. Raksakecha Chaechai, secretary-general of the Ombudsman’s Office, on Saturday.

 

He said that officials from the Ombudsman’s Office were working on the Prime Minister’s written explanation of the matter, in response to the complaint lodged by Mr. Srisuwan Janya, secretary-general of the Thai Constitution Protection Association, accusing the Prime Minister of violating Section 161 of the Constitution.

 

Mr. Raksakecha also said that his office had received two similar complaints, from Mr. Aiya Petthong, secretary-general of the Buddhism for Peace Protection Organization, and from Mr. Panupong Churak, a student attending Ramkhamhaeng University.

 

Full story: https://www.thaipbsworld.com/ombudsman-to-rule-on-the-matter-of-pms-incomplete-oath-next-tuesday/

 

thaipbs.jpg

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2019-08-25
Posted

So if they conclude he did not recite the oath properly he is technically not the PM and should be replaced?

  • Like 1
Posted

So the big oaf forgot the oath. He has already and will do in future many worse things to keep his cohorts noses entrenched in the troughs.

Posted

Ombudsman rules: The PM did not word the Oaf of Office completely. But he meant to do it. Therefore he did it. He is still the Oaf. It's the spirit that counts and not the wording. Now I'm off to do some counting myself...

  • Haha 1
Posted
3 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The Ombudsman is expected to rule

The Ombudsman has no judicial authority.

Any "ruling" is only an administrative opinion and not legally binding.

According to the Constitution, the Ombudsman can refer a case to the court for prosecution, similar to the authority of the EC and the NACC. Normally, prosecution is referred to the Office of the Attorney General, a Cabinet position.

The plaintiff Srisuwan can I think directly petition the Constitutional Court.

The only real advantage for Srisuwan going to the Ombudsman might be simply to play the issue out in the public eye as a political maneuver to embarrass Prayut and reveal his feigned loyalty to a democratic state. 

Posted
3 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

Why can't he just have another go, like a driving test and if he still cannot manage to get it right just pay to pass anyway?

he blatantly refused to do so

  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

Why can't he just have another go, like a driving test and if he still cannot manage to get it right just pay to pass anyway?

Because the one who ordered him to leave out that section of the oath STILL does not want it to be said.

  • Like 2
Posted
4 hours ago, scorecard said:

True, but if this was the FF leaders he would be charged with LM.

Hardly.  Likely 'majeste' has instructed and approved.

  • Like 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, greeneking said:

Hardly.  Likely 'majeste' has instructed and approved.

Sure, my point is the current 'gov't' would IMHO throw anything they could at Khun Thanathorn to keep him suspended even jailed and I wouldn't put it past them to try LM. 

  • Like 2
Posted
10 hours ago, grumbleweed said:

I can't for the life of me imagine what the outcome of this little charade will be

It will just be another of the world mysteries as to how the decision was derived by the Ombudsman. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...