PM's Affidavit Prepped for Court in Impeachment Saga

[webfact]

 

Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin has confirmed today that he has officially signed an affidavit defending himself against an impeachment lawsuit. The document, prepared by Srettha's legal team, was submitted to the Constitutional Court earlier this morning.

 

This affidavit comes in response to charges brought forth by a group of 40 senators, many of whom are said to be aligned with Palang Pracharath leader Prawit Wongsuwan and former coup leader-turned-privy councillor Prayut Chan-o-cha.

 

Srettha's adviser, Wissanu Krea-ngam, a respected legal expert, reviewed the affidavit before it was finalised. Krea-ngam is well-known for his knack for navigating complex legal waters, having previously served in the Thaksin and Prayut governments.

 

The prime minister faces accusations of violating the constitution and political ethics. The controversy stems from his appointment of Pichit Chuenban, a former lawyer for Pheu Thai Party’s de facto leader, Thaksin Shinawatra, to a ministerial position.

 

Chuenban’s appointment to the Prime Minister’s Office last April sparked outrage, primarily because he had previously been sentenced to six months in jail for contempt of court and attempted bribery during a 2008 land grab lawsuit involving Thaksin.

 

Although Chuenban has since resigned amid mounting pressure, Srettha remains vulnerable to impeachment due to the alleged illegality of the appointment. The senators argue that the act constitutes a severe breach of constitutional and ethical standards, equating it to a fait accompli.

 

If the Constitutional Court finds the prime minister guilty, he could potentially lose his position immediately. The case is expected to proceed over the next few months, keeping the political climate tense.

 

Srettha’s ties to Thaksin have led to accusations that the prime minister is merely a puppet for Pheu Thai’s de facto leader. Critics argue that Thaksin has been exerting behind-the-scenes influence, particularly evident in the formation of the Pheu Thai-led coalition government and the appointment of its ministers.

 

Srettha Thavisin. (AP Photo/Sakchai Lalit)

 

-- 2024-06-08

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

[Dogmatix]

In a recent poll asking Thais who they would like as PM, Srettha was trailing at 8%.  Pita was top with 46%.  Prayut 3rd with 17% and Thaksin's daughter just above Srettha. Anutin was I think just below him.  Thais didn't elect this clown and it is pretty clear that the vast majority don't want him or Thaksin's daughter as PM.  So there will be few tears, if the court decides to bin him. 

[hotchilli]

Between a rock and a hard place, if the CC find him guilty they are abiding by the law, but will upset many, if they find him innocent they are ignoring the law.

[klauskunkel]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

Srettha Thavisin has officially signed an affidavit defending himself against an impeachment lawsuit brought forth by 40 senators, many of whom are said to be aligned with Prawit and Prayut

 

7 hours ago, webfact said:

 Srettha's adviser,  Wissanu Krea-ngam, is well-known for his

own alignment with Prawit and Prayut and Thaksin 

[Snig27]

2 hours ago, hotchilli said:

Between a rock and a hard place, if the CC find him guilty they are abiding by the law, but will upset many, if they find him innocent they are ignoring the law.

 

The CC invents the law as their masters wish. They are not a judicial body as most countries know one, they are closer to old-fashioned mafia enforcers. Much like the EC.

[thesetat2013]

i can only imagine his affidavit. Thaksin convinced me he was the best man. So i did what he told me. I am innocent because i followed orders hmm.. 

[bradiston]

20 hours ago, Snig27 said:

 

The CC invents the law as their masters wish. They are not a judicial body as most countries know one, they are closer to old-fashioned mafia enforcers. Much like the EC.

They showed their true colours when they ruled on MFP's alleged intent to overthrow democracy by daring to propose amendments to a law written and voted on by elected members of parliament, ie 112. It's just a law, nothing to do with the constitution. They should have had no say in it. If they're allowed to tamper with the parliamentary process given to MPs as lawmakers, you might as well shut the doors to parliament and declare a fascist state.