Pichit stays silent amid probe into his eligibility to be a minister
The newly appointed PM’s Office Minister, Pichit Chuenban, was reluctant to speak to the media on Friday amid calls to probe his eligibility for a Cabinet post because of his previous jail sentences.
Pichit arrived late on Friday afternoon at Government House, where he was approached by reporters.
The new minister said smilingly that he did not want to speak about any issue.
When asked whether he was worried about current petitions to investigate if he was qualified for the post, he said: “I feel weightless.”
The appointment ignited controversy as Pichit had earlier served six months in prison over an attempt to bribe Supreme Court judges with 2 million baht in cash in the Ratchadaphisek land case against former PM Thaksin Shinawatra in 2008.
Pichit’s practising certificate as a lawyer was subsequently revoked for five years.
Former Democrat Party MP Watchara Petchthong earlier handed a petition to the Office of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), urging it to decide if Srettha had committed a breach of ethics by his decision to appoint Pichit.
The NACC said it was looking into the matter.
The premier has constantly reiterated that the ex-lawyer was qualified as he had already been approved by the Council of State.
According to its document published in September 2023, the Council of State had provided legal advice to the Secretariat of the Cabinet in response to its question regarding the qualification for anyone holding ministerial positions.
The council cited Article 160 (6), on being sentenced by a judgement to imprisonment and imprisoned by a warrant of the court.
It also cited Section 160 (7), which prohibits a person sentenced by a judgment to imprisonment, irrespective of the finality of the case or a suspension of the punishment, except for an offence committed through negligence, a petty offence or a defamation offence.
The council said the duty to interpret the Constitution lies with the Constitutional Court and its counsel was just a response to the government’s question.
