Checks and balances are “being undermined.”
PUBLISHED: 21 Aug 2024 at 04: 55
A group of attorneys and professors of law at a university have criticized the recent decisions by the Constitutional Court to dissolve the Move Forward Party ( MFP ) and oust Srettha Thavisin as prime minister.
The party, comprising 134 rules experts, released a speech critical of the court for supposedly overstepping its authority, which could potentially destroy the country’s system of checks and balances.
The statement makes reference to the two rulings, one of which was made on August 7 and which mandated the dissolution of the MFP due to its attempts to undermine the democratic dynasty and the ten-year ban on 11 party executives. The other was passed on August 14 against Mr. Srettha because Pichit Chuenban had been appointed to the government.
The experts claimed that they disagreed with both decisions and that they attributed this to the court’s understanding of connected laws. This view contradicts the fundamental principle of the laws and may threaten democracy’s rule.
The constitutional authorities provided four arguments to refute the judgments.
Second, they maintained that the judge may include overstretched its power, which resulted in the MFP being dissolved, its professionals facing a democratic ban, and Mr Srettha being removed from the league. They insisted that if the law was applied to limit a child’s right, it must be done restrictively and slowly.
The court determined that the MFP case’s power extends beyond allowing it to rule on important issues like the party’s plan administration and congressional amendment authority.
In the Srettha case, the jury insisted the context of a primary minister’s dishonest and unethical works extend over their foolish election of a person with questionable skills, a reference to Mr Pichit, as a government minister.
Next, the Constitutional Court forbade the defendants from providing accurate and thorough information and testimony for their own defense.
In the MFP case, the jury accepted some pieces of evidence and witnesses. However, the jury did not allow the group to speak or counter charges during the proceedings.
Third, the jury may be viewed as asserting a part of keeping the politicians in check by pleading guilty to acting against the constitutional monarchy, which obstructs the checks and balances between the parliamentary, executive, and judicial departments.
According to the speech, disrupted checks and balances may undermine the safety of person’s rights and freedom and the independence of lawmakers in carrying out their duties.
Finally, the researchers felt the decisions have dented people trust, both at home and abroad, in the country’s legal system and political principle.