Before the July 10 hearing, the judge requests all data.
PUBLISHED: 19 Jun 2024 at 04: 09
The jury is scheduled to reexamine the case on July 10 and order all parties involved in Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin’s ethics situation to post evidence by Tuesday.
The court announced on Tuesday that those involved are required to give their opinions and facts on the subjects that the court has specified within 15 times to aid in the court’s investigation of the case.
The judge will continue to deliberate on July 10; it’s not known whether it will make a decision that did, at the very least, put the government on guard until then.
The controversy surrounding Mr. Srettha’s session of lawmaker Pichit Chuenban as a PM’s Office secretary in the most recent cabinet reshuffle affects his case. A group of 40 senators, which had the power to launch the case, filed a lawsuit against the prime minister and Pichit for violating the constitution’s Section 160 ( 4 ) and ( 5 ), which forbids the conduct of cabinet ministers.
They claimed that Pichit was inadequate to hold a cabinet position because he had already spent time in jail for contempt of court while representing Thaksin Shinawatra in a contentious land dispute in 2008.
Just before the jury heard the plea, Mr. Pichit resigned from the position in what was thought to be a bid to save Mr. Srettha from a legal battle. The judge agreed to hear the circumstance against Mr. Srettha, who had already submitted his defense to the Constitutional Court on June 7. Pichit had now resigned.
Legal professional Wissanu Krea- ngam, who was appointed as an assistant to the prime minister, said on Tuesday  , the premier’s legitimate team submitted just one witness in the list handed to the court.
The man was Natjaree Anantasilp, the commission’s secretary- public, because she knew the entire operation, he said. Nevertheless, he declined to share the details of the primary leader’s army because the judge had yet to consider the matter.
Mr. Wissanu claimed that the prime minister’s defense addressed the issues of social standards and integrity, noting that the terms had their own definitions in the law and that a procedure was in place to file an accusation against a politician for breaking them. ” I think moral standards or dignity will be a crucial point in the judge’s account. You can check whether someone is in prison or on probation. But you ca n’t examine ethical standards or integrity without a specific process”, he said.
The previous deputy prime minister claimed that if someone was dishonest under the law without a process to analyze it, they would be in danger of being disqualified for living. Other organizations are even given responsibility for looking into such problems in accordance with the charter.
He claimed that the judge’s decision in Mr. Srettha’s circumstance would establish a law, but he had no idea when the decision would be made.