Hearing on Petition Against PM Srettha Slated for July 10 by Charter Court

[snoop1130]

 

The Charter Court has scheduled July 10 as the initial hearing date for a petition filed by 40 previous senators. They accuse Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin of breaching the Constitution by appointing Phichit Chuenban to the role of PM Office Minister, even after he served prison time. If the court decides in the petitioners' favor, Srettha could lose his Prime Minister role. However, he contends that the appointment was lawful. Srettha, currently on sick leave due to COVID-19, is the fifth Prime Minister to face trial by the Constitutional Court since its establishment in 1997.

 

Two former Prime Ministers, Samak Sundaravej and Yingluck Shinawatra, were found guilty and ejected from office. In contrast, Thaksin Shinawatra and Prayut Chan-o-cha saw their charges cleared. Both Samak and Yingluck were closely associated with the previous Prime Minister Thaksin, seen as the head of the Pheu Thai party. Srettha, a newcomer to politics and a leading property businessperson, thus becomes the third Prime Minister from the Thaksin group to come under the Charter Court's examination.

 

During the last election, Srettha was one of the three nominees for Prime Minister by the Pheu Thai party, led by Thaksin's youngest daughter, 37-year-old Paetongtarn. The charges brought forward against Srettha cite Article 160 of the Constitution, stating ministers should clearly display integrity and hold high ethical standards.

 

In 2008, Pichit served a six-month prison sentence for contempt of court while defending Thaksin in a land deal case. The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Officeholders discovered Pichit and two colleagues attempted to bribe court officials with 2 million baht. Critics argue Pichit's close ties to Thaksin, who maintains significant political influence after returning from self-imposed exile last year, secured his Cabinet appointment.

 

Pichit later gave up his position leaving Srettha alone to face the court and the petitioners, to which he responded by reiterating that Pichit’s appointment was legal. Before taking this decision, Srettha confirmed he had consulted the Council of State, the government's legal advisor. While the Constitutional Court dismissed the case against Pichit on May 23 because he resigned, the judges voted 6:3 to hear Srettha's case. However, with a 5:4 vote, they opted against suspending him until a verdict is reached.

 

File photo for reference only

 

 

-- 2024-06-18

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

[hotchilli]

12 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

In 2008, Pichit served a six-month prison sentence for contempt of court while defending Thaksin in a land deal case. The Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Officeholders discovered Pichit and two colleagues attempted to bribe court officials with 2 million baht.

In certain circles some people assume this is an ethical practice.

[brianthainess]

15 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Srettha, a newcomer to politics and a leading property businessperson, thus becomes the third Prime Minister

Just what this country needed a no nothing clown, who has achieved only one thing, and that has been to make this country, slide even further down the slippery slope, grasping at straws, with false hope and promises that simply can not be achieved, trying to buy votes at 10k a pop, when 500baht would have sufficed like in yesteryear, with money that is simply not there. Silly Wonker.

[snoop1130]

Court orders evidence in PM Srettha’s ethics case

 

 

The Constitutional Court has thrown the government into turmoil by demanding all parties in Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin’s ethics case submit evidence within 15 days.

 

The court’s decision came yesterday, setting a new hearing date for July 10 but it remains uncertain whether a ruling will be issued then, leaving the government in a state of anxiety.

 

The case revolves around the contentious appointment of Pichit Chuenban as a PM’s Office minister during the last Cabinet reshuffle. A group of 40 senators initiated the case, accusing the Thai premier and Pichit of breaching Cabinet minister ethics under Section 160 (4) and (5) of the constitution. They claimed Pichit was unfit for the role, having served jail time for contempt of court during a 2008 bribery case linked to Thaksin Shinawatra.

 

Pichit resigned before the court accepted the petition, an apparent attempt to shield PM Srettha from legal complications. Consequently, the court dismissed the case against Pichit but proceeded with the case against the 62 year old Thai prime minister, who submitted his defence on June 7.

 

Legal expert Wissanu Krea-ngam, appointed as an adviser to the prime minister, revealed that the premier’s legal team presented only one witness: Natjaree Anantasilp, the Cabinet’s Secretary-General, citing her comprehensive knowledge of the appointment process. Wissanu refrained from disclosing specifics of the defence, highlighting that ethical standards and integrity were central to the case.

 

“The terms ‘ethical standards’ and ‘integrity’ have specific definitions in the constitution. There is a formal process for evaluating accusations of ethical breaches. Declaring someone dishonest without due process would disqualify them for life, which is a serious implication.”

 

Wissanu emphasised that the court’s decision would set a significant precedent, though the timing of the ruling remains uncertain, reported Bangkok Post.

 

By Puntid Tantivangphaisal

Photo courtesy of Bangkok Post

 

Source: The Thaiger 2024-06-19

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

[Gottfrid]

23 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

The Constitutional Court has thrown the government into turmoil by demanding all parties in Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin’s ethics case submit evidence within 15 days.

Yes, understandable. A court orders in evidence in a case???? Who could even dream of believing such a thing?

[hotchilli]

15 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

“The terms ‘ethical standards’ and ‘integrity’ have specific definitions in the constitution.

As we have all witnessed over the years

[klauskunkel]

16 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Wissanu emphasised that the court’s decision would set a significant precedent

That precedent would be: accountability for one's action

That one has never been used before, and Wissanu just told the court not to let it happen.

Accountability, can't have it, especially in politics.

[Thingamabob]

What evidence ? He appointed a convicted felon as everybody already knows.