Pita now ineligible to be PM, according to academic

Pita now ineligible to be PM, according to academic
Pita now ineligible to be PM, according to academic
Pita Limjaroenrat, the Move Forward Party’s main assistant, will leave Pathumwan District Court on Monday following the decision in the 2019 flash mob case. Apichart Jinakul ( picture )

Pita Limjaroenrat, a candidate for the Move Forward Party’s primary ministerial office, was barred from the position after being sentenced to serve time in prison for his involvement in the 2019 Bangkok flash crowd protest.

According to Jade Donavanik, a lecturer at the College of Asian Scholars, Mr. Pita’s eligibility to serve as prime minister under Section 160(7 ) of the constitution was impacted by the four-month sentence that the Pathumwan District Court issued on Monday.

The area stated that unless it was an offense committed through negligence, a minor offense, or defamation, the minister could not be someone who had been sentenced by judgment to arrest, regardless of how serious the case was or how long the punishment was suspended.

Even though the display mob case is still pending and the jail sentence has been suspended, Mr. Jade, an advisor to the previous constitution drafting committee, claimed that Mr Pita was now disqualified by the law.

Pita and seven other people, including Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, the mind of the Progressive Movement and former Future Forward Party leader, received a four-month prison sentence on Monday for their participation in the Dec. 14 display mob protest on an elevated sidewalk at Pathumwan intersection.

The Election Commission’s decision to call for the dissolution of the Future Forward Party for improperly accepting a sizable payment from Mr. Thanathorn was followed by the largest protest since the 2014 military takeover.

The judge subsequently&nbsp, disbanded the party, and forbade Mr. Thanathorn and other administrative members from holding public office.

On Monday, Mr. Pita declared that they would challenge the beam crowd case’s decision.