6 November 2023 at 18: 31 PUBLISHED
Ruangkrai Leekitwattana, a political advocate, requested on Monday that the Election Commission look into two government officials he claims violated the constitution by owning stock in businesses through their wives.
If proven, it might result in them losing their seats in the case.
Because their spouses own sizable amounts of shares in limited partnerships, Mr. Ruangkrai claims that Minister of Agriculture and Cooperatives Chaiya Promma & nbsp and Defence Minister Sutin Klungsang violated the charter’s Sections 170 and 187.
According to the two sections, politicians and their spouses are not permitted to own stock in a business while serving in the cupboard.
On September 1, Mr. Chaiya was given his new job, he claimed.
The Department of Business Development( DBD) was informed on September 16 by his partner, Anchalee Promma, a important primary in Sri Boonrueng Wattana Limited Partnership, that the agreement had received 300,000 baht in cash boost payments from Attathan Powerhouse, according to Mr. Ruangkrai.
Ms. Athisthan is the child of Mr. Chaiya.
According to him, Ms. Anchalee’s involvement in the limited partnership may serve as evidence that she continues to be a companion and boss. As a result, he claimed that if the Constitutional Court found Mr. Chaiya guilty in accordance with Sections 170 ( 5 ) and 187 of the constitution, his appointment to the cabinet might be revoked. ( continues below )
Minister of Agriculture and Cooperatives Chaiya Promma
He claimed that Mr. Sutin was appointed defense minister on September 1 and that as of November 3, his wife Chaweewan Klungsang was still listed in the DBD database as a controlling partner— a key principle of the Klungang Esan partnership. & nbsp,
According to him, Ms. Chaweewan held shares of the limited partnership for 1 million ringgit as of November 3 at an estimated price of 1.2 million.
As a result, he claimed that the shares owned by Mr. Sutin’s spouse may be considered to be the ministers’ shareholdings and nbsp in the same relationship.
He added that it was believed that Ms. Chaweewan held more than 5 % of the stock, which is against the law.
According to Mr. Ruangkrai, he had thus requested that the EC look into these two scenarios and send them to the Constitutional Court for review.