PUBLISHED: 4 May 2024 at 05: 47
Srettha Thavisin, the prime minister, dismissed the possibility of being held accountable for appointing Pichit Chuenban, his adviser, as the PM’s Office Minister, reportedly without checking his registration and submitting his nomination for royal support despite his dubious background.
The PM insisted he had submitted the new government collection- up to the Council of State, the president’s legal arm, for observation before he really submitted it for royal support.
He was responding to growing condemnation from political experts regarding Pichit’s interview.
Mr. Srettha simply said he would rather let the legal process go on in response to a petition two political movement groups sent to the Election Commission (EC ) asking for a further ruling against the appointment in particular.
The Women’s Centre to Guard the Monarchy and the Network of Students and People Reforming Thailand were the two organizations that jointly submitted the complaint on Tuesday.
When Pichit dropped a package of goodies containing$ 2 million baht at the Supreme Court in what was regarded as an attempted reward, he and his two coworkers were given a six-month prison term in 2008 for contempt of court.
In the notorious Ratchadaphisek property purchase scenario, Pichit therefore represented former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his ex-wife, Khunying Potjaman na Pombejra. That time, Thaksin was given a two-year prison sentence. His crimes cost him his judge’s permission. His efforts to reclaim it have been rejected.
Mr. Srettha said he was n’t aware of the council’s previous statement that Pichit is ineligible for not meeting MP moral and ethical standards and that the Constitutional Court would decide that issue.
According to Sen. Somchai Sawangkarn, the EC is then required to petition the Constitutional Court to remove Pichit from his position as the PM’s Office Minister until his enrollment is determined.
According to Section 160( 4 ) and( 5 ), which establish the moral and ethical standards of a cabinet minister, the court will be asked to determine whether Pichit’s criminal history renders him unfit for the appointment.
Since Pichit’s faith had already passed, and the 10-year split required between serving a prison term and the appointment of an MP, a resource in the cupboard claims that his incarceration in the 2008 contempt of court case does not make him ineligible for cabinet minister status.
After all, the court has the authority to determine whether Pichit upholds the MP’s moral and ethical standards, according to the cause.