Constitutional Court rules in PM’s favour, says that there is no basis for his removal from office over home

December 2, 2020 at 4:40 pm
by News Desk
in Personal, Politics, Thai World, Thailand
Tweet Share Share

Eagerly awaited court decision lifts the weight of doubt on the Prime Minister as the court finds that his army home is justified, appropriate and no reason to remove him from office.

Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan ocha will remain in office after a Constitutional Court ruling on Wednesday found in his favour over his occupancy of a home provided by the Royal Thai Army in Bangkok.

constitutional-court-rules-in-pms-favour — Prime Minister Prayut Chan ocha was cleared by the Constitutional Court on Wednesday over his continued occupancy of an army home in Bangkok.

Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan ocha has survived the case brought before the Constitutional Court concerning his continued occupation of an army home in Bangkok.

The judges of the Constitutional Court took their seats on Wednesday afternoon and handed down their judgment.

The case was brought to court by Pheu Thai MP from Nakhon Ratchasima and the Secretary-General of Thailand’s largest political party, Prasert Jantararuangtong.

Prime Minister ceased to be Army Chief at the end of September 2014 taking on his current role

The court first observed the facts of the case in which it outlined that the current Prime Minister was Commander and Chief of the Royal Thai Army until the 30th September 2014 after which, he assumed the position of Prime Minister.

The court found that there was no conflict of interest in the matter as the army can, at its discretion, provide a home for a current sitting Prime Minister for safety and security reasons.

Official Prime Minister’s residence not ready

The court also noted that the official residence of the Prime Minister, Ban Phitsanulok, was not ready for use by the PM so the provision of a home in Bangkok, including the cost of electricity and water charges, was appropriate.

Therefore, the court found no conflict of interests and no reason why the Prime Minister’s position could be successfully challenged. No act was committed which would cause or justify his removal from office.

The top court had, in recent hours, warned the public that while commentary on its judgment was allowed, it would not tolerate disrespectful opinions being aired or statements that were or could be understood as contempt for the court.

It said that those involved could face prosecution.