EC persists in Thaksin investigation despite court ruling

[webfact]

Image courtesy of Bangkok Post

 

by Ryan Turner

The Election Commission (EC) remains steadfast in its investigation into allegations against former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, focusing on claims of his manipulation of the Pheu Thai Party and interference in the coalition government.

 

This action continues despite the Constitutional Court’s recent decision to dismiss a petition accusing Thaksin and the ruling party of attempting to overthrow Thailand’s constitutional monarchy.

 

EC Secretary-General Sawang Boonmee clarified the situation, highlighting the different laws used in handling the case.

 

“Even though these matters concern the same facts [about Thaksin’s actions], the EC and the court use different laws in the handling of these petitions against Thaksin.”

This indicates that while the court’s ruling pertains to constitutional violations, the EC’s inquiry addresses breaches of the organic law on political parties.

 

The court had evaluated Thaksin’s activities under Section 49 of the constitution, which deals with misconduct and the misuse of rights and liberties in ways that might threaten the constitutional monarchy.

 

External manipulation

 

In contrast, the EC’s investigation targets the Pheu Thai Party’s alleged breach of the organic law that prohibits external manipulation, with Thaksin being the alleged outsider.

 

Sawang cited a previous case against the now-dissolved Move Forward Party (MFP) to highlight the EC’s distinct approach. In that instance, while the court considered a petition against the MFP, the EC did not have the jurisdiction to pursue it as it related to allegations of attempting to dismantle the government’s democratic structure.

 

Although the 74 year old former PM has been relieved from the immediate legal challenge following the court’s dismissal of the petition, he still faces two separate legal proceedings. One is the ongoing EC investigation, while the other is a case in the Criminal Court.

 

The first case, overseen by the EC, concerns allegations that the Pheu Thai Party and its coalition partners under the Srettha Thavisin administration consented to Thaksin’s undue influence. This could result in the dissolution of Pheu Thai and its former coalition parties if proven true, as it would violate Section 29 of the organic law on political parties.

 

The allegations stem from a meeting at Thaksin’s Chan Song La residence in Bangkok on August 14, where discussions reportedly took place regarding potential successors for Srettha Thavisin, who was dismissed as prime minister by the Constitutional Court.

 

Moreover, Thaksin is accused of intervening in the selection process for a new prime ministerial candidate following Srettha’s removal. Evidence supporting these claims includes Thaksin’s public statements concerning Pheu Thai’s policies, some of which were presented at a prominent forum on August 22 before being adopted by the coalition.

 

Lese majeste

 

The second case against Thaksin involves a charge under Section 112 of the Criminal Code, commonly known as the lese majeste law. This accusation relates to an interview Thaksin gave in Seoul in 2015, which allegedly contained remarks deemed hostile to the monarchy.

 

In response to these ongoing legal challenges, Pheu Thai’s legal team has announced plans to file a countersuit against lawyer Teerayut Suwankesorn, who was responsible for submitting the case that the court dismissed. This move indicates the party’s intent to challenge the legal actions taken against them, reported Bangkok Post.

 

Soure: The Thaiger 

-- 2024-11-25

 

 

[smedly]

exile to ?

 

what a farce, they keep fumbling ,  this man is a criminal - what is he doing out of jail -he robbed the people of billions - what a "big joke ' 

 

corruption  unmatched 

[dinsdale]

Smokescreen. Whatever happens the outcome will remain the same. PTP are needed to maintain the Royalist Military Elites Establishment's grip on power and a continuation of the status quo.

[Callmeishmael]

This is a classic carrot and stick approach.  The EC is the stick and the Court is the carrot!

[Tropicalevo]

39 minutes ago, Callmeishmael said:

This is a classic carrot and stick approach.  The EC is the stick and the Court is the carrot!

 

The CC is constitutional.

The members of the EC were put in power by Prayut and his henchmen, who also expanded their powers.

[dinsdale]

28 minutes ago, Tropicalevo said:

28 minutes ago, Tropicalevo said:

 

The CC is constitutional.

The members of the EC were put in power by Prayut and his henchmen, who also expanded their powers.

reposting

 

Edited 1 hour ago by dinsdale

[dinsdale]

30 minutes ago, Tropicalevo said:

 

The CC is constitutional.

The members of the EC were put in power by Prayut and his henchmen, who also expanded their powers.

Re-post from above: The Constitutional Court serves one purpose. To protect the establishment and safeguard the status quo. As for being constitutional have you forgotten who it was that drafted the current constitution?

Edited 1 hour ago by dinsdale