In a major political development, Thailand’s Constitutional Court has removed Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin from his position. The court ruled that Srettha had violated the constitution due to a controversial cabinet appointment. This decision has sent shockwaves through the country’s political landscape, as Srettha had only been in office for less than a year.
The court’s decision centered around allegations that Srettha had not followed ethical guidelines when selecting members of his cabinet. Specifically, the issue was with the appointment of a lawyer, Pichit, who had a criminal record. Pichit had been convicted in 2008 for a corruption-related offense and had served a six-month prison sentence.
Despite this, Srettha chose him for a ministerial position, leading to accusations that the prime minister had grossly breached ethical rules.
A group of former senators, who had been appointed by Thailand’s previous ruling junta, initiated the case against Srettha. They argued that his actions were not in line with the constitutional provisions that require government officials to act with honesty and integrity.
The court, in a 5-4 decision, sided with the former senators, stating that Srettha’s position as prime minister was terminated under the constitution due to his failure to adhere to these ethical standards.
Judge Punya Udchachon, delivering the court’s judgment, emphasized that the decision was made because Srettha had not shown honesty in his appointment of Pichit. This ruling highlights the importance of ethical conduct in government positions and the severe consequences of failing to uphold these standards.
In response to the verdict, Srettha expressed his respect for the court’s decision, though he admitted that he did not anticipate this outcome. Despite his short tenure, Srettha’s time in office was marked by challenges, including this legal battle that ultimately led to his removal.
This ruling comes just a week after the same court ordered the dissolution of the primary opposition party, the Move Forward Party (MFP). The court also imposed a 10-year political ban on the MFP’s former leader. These decisions have further intensified the political tension in Thailand, where the influence of the military and traditional elites remains strong.
Srettha’s removal is also connected to the ongoing political struggle involving Thaksin Shinawatra, a wealthy former prime minister who once owned Manchester City Football Club. Thaksin has long been a target of Thailand’s traditionalist, monarchy-supporting, and military-aligned elite. Pichit’s ties to Thaksin’s relatives added another layer of controversy to the cabinet appointment, ultimately leading to Srettha’s downfall.
To protect Srettha, Pichit resigned from the cabinet, but this move was not enough to prevent the court from ruling against the prime minister. The political future of Thailand remains uncertain as the country navigates these turbulent times, with the military’s influence continuing to play a significant role in shaping the nation’s governance.
Srettha’s rise to power had been seen as a significant moment for Thailand, as he led a coalition government formed by the Pheu Thai party. This coalition was established after negotiations with parties linked to the military, highlighting the complex and often conflicting interests within Thai politics. However, his time in office has now been cut short, and the country must prepare for the challenges that lie ahead as it seeks to stabilize its political environment.
Comments