Constitutional Court rejects petition against Thaksin and Pheu Thai
Judges cite lack of evidence of attempts to overthrow constitutional monarchy system
The Constitutional Court unanimously declined to accept a petition accusing Thaksin Shinawatra and the Pheu Thai Party of actions aimed at overthrowing the constitutional monarchy system.
The petitioner cited Thaksin's stay on the 14th floor of the Police General Hospital, collaboration with the People's Party to amend the Constitution and negotiations with party leaders to form a government at his residence to justify the petition.
The court also dismissed 7-2 a petition challenging the 2001 memorandum of understanding with Cambodia, also known as MOU44.
The Constitutional Court published the results of its deliberations on Friday (November 22), while dismissing a petition filed by Teerayut Suwankesorn, an independent lawyer.
The petition appealed to the court to determine whether former Thaksin and the Pheu Thai Party had acted in ways that constituted exercising rights or freedoms aimed at overthrowing the democratic system with the King as Head of State.
The petition contained six accusations:
1. Thaksin allegedly directed the government, including the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Corrections, and the Police General Hospital, to provide him preferential treatment. This included allowing him to reside in the hospital during his prison term despite no evidence of critical illness, effectively avoiding incarceration in prison.
2. Thaksin reportedly instructed the government to negotiate with the former Cambodian prime minister on overlapping maritime areas. The discussions allegedly aimed to share natural gas and underwater resource benefits, potentially compromising Thailand’s maritime sovereignty.
3. Thaksin allegedly directed the Pheu Thai Party to collaborate with the People's Party to amend the constitution. The People's Party was established by members of the dissolved Move Forward Party, which was disbanded following a Constitutional Court ruling that it had engaged in activities aimed at overthrowing the democratic system with the King as Head of State.
4. Thaksin allegedly acted on behalf of the Pheu Thai Party by holding private negotiations with leaders of coalition parties in the Srettha Thavisin administration to nominate a new prime minister at his private residence.
5. Thaksin is accused of instructing the Pheu Thai Party to vote for the expulsion of the Palang Pracharath Party from the coalition government.
6. Thaksin allegedly directed the Pheu Thai Party to adopt his personal policies, previously outlined in public statements, as the official Cabinet policies presented to Parliament.
The charter court stated that determining whether an individual is exercising his or her rights or freedoms to overthrow the democratic system with the King as Head of State, under the Constitution, requires clear and sufficient evidence to demonstrate intent and a level of likelihood that a reasonable person could foresee the action as potentially resulting in such an overthrow. The actions must be ongoing and not too remote to be considered relevant.
The Constitutional Court, therefore, ruled that:
On issues 1 and 3–6: There was insufficient evidence to suggest that the respondents' actions would result in an exercise of rights or freedoms to overthrow the democratic system with the King as Head of State. Therefore, the case does not meet the criteria outlined in Article 49, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution. The court unanimously rejected these allegations.
On issue 2: By a majority vote (7–2), the court declined to consider this issue (MOU44), citing insufficient evidence to support the claim that the respondents' actions could lead to the aforementioned result under Article 49, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution.
