Critics claim that making claims that dissolution is beneficial for raising money is contrary to the criminal code of conduct.
PUBLISHED: 22 Aug 2024 at 15: 19
A prosecutor of the Constitutional Court is facing criticism for claiming credit for the judge’s earlier this month’s dissolution of the Move Forward Party.
Udom Sittiwirattham received criticism for remarks he made at a lecture on the judge’s part in protecting women’s rights and freedoms in Surat Thani on August 15.
He urged the MPs of the Move Forward Party to thank him because they were able to collect millions of dollars in donations in a few days after the party’s dissolution on August 7 and its members ‘ reorganization as the People’s Party ( PP ) amalgam.
The judge was responding to criticism that the demise of social events would harm political institutions.
Over the past 20 years, the mandate court has dissolved tens of parties, most of them small and frequently on technical grounds. But it has also dissolved significant events including Thai Rak Thai and one of its descendants, as well as Move Forward and its president, Future Forward.  ,
On Thursday People’s Party ( PP ) list MP Chulapong Yukate said the judge’s remark may have been sarcastic, but people could question his ethics for making it. Normally, judges are never supposed to comment on cases in public.
Another PP record MP, Wiroj Lakkhanaadisorn, urged Judge Udom to examine the magistrates ‘ code of conduct, saying he did not believe his brother Constitutional Court judges did back his actions.
Former poll director Somchai Srisutthiyakorn claimed the code of conduct for Constitutional Court courts forbade them from dishonoring their jobs and displaying prejudice against others and required them to respect human dignity.
Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, a law professor at Thammasat University, wrote on Twitter that he had never heard any assess speaking of a defendant in a manner that may be viewed as satirical. Constitutional Court courts ‘ code of conduct required them to become independent, he wrote.
Tongthong Chandransu, a former law professor and director to the perfect secretary, wrote on Twitter that judges may be quiet after decisions to ensure that they ruled without discrimination.
In the Aug 15 conversation in Surat Thani, Judge Udom, 70, even questioned the constitutionality of the funds received by the Women’s Party, as it had not been formally renamed. Since its founding on August 9, the group has raised more than 25 million rmb and signed up more than 50 000 people.
Mr. Udom claimed he had learned that the group was using the Thin Kakao Chaovilai Party’s bank accounts, which all of its Members had moved to and then changed their names, to get the funds.
He added that the prosecutor had disbanded a number of social events because they broke the law.
Judge Udom claimed that the court plainly saw what the new-generation group was doing in reference to the disintegration of Move Forward. Its decision, he said, elaborated on the possibility of the ultimate effects of its activities.
The judge said on August 15 that supporters of dissolved democratic parties stayed focused on merely criticizing their dissolution and disregarded the reasons for the choices.
Move Forward won the May 14 general election next year, but its efforts to amend Part 112 of the Criminal Code, the lese-majeste laws, price it a chance to form a partnership state.
The same problem led to its breakdown this month when the group was found guilty of violating the constitution’s and national security by the Constitutional Court.
According to reports, 70-year-old Constitutional Court judge Udom Sittiwirattham reportedly said that Potential Forward MPs may thank him because the breakdown decision resulted in millions of ringgit in funds for its leader group. ( Photo: Constitutional Court )