The Pheu Thai Party will file a complaint with the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) against anti-government leader Suthep Thaugsuban for treason today, party spokesman Prompong Nopparit said yesterday at a press conference.
The announcement followed the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) leader’s declaration at the Lumpini Park rally site on Saturday that the people would regain sovereign power and he would seek endorsement from His Majesty for a new prime minister as soon as the National Anti-Corruption Commission or Constitutional Court rules that caretaker premier Yingluck Shinawatra and the caretaker government must step down.
Mr Prompong said Mr Suthep’s remark violated Section 113 of the Criminal Code in connection with insurrection.
He said he would lodge the complaint with the DSI today as the issue is a threat to national security.
He also called on the armed forces to voice their stance in connection with Mr Suthep’s remark as the PDRC leader’s approach is a threat to national security and the democratic system.
Speaking about Mr Suthep’s remark, PDRC spokesman Akanat Promphan said yesterday when the power returns to the people, there must be a process to form a neutral and well-accepted government as well as the legislative assembly to push for national reform.
Asked if the PDRC leader will invoke Section 7 of the constitution to pave the way for a royally appointed government instead of the Senate which is still active, Mr Akanat said the section only suggests tradition should be followed, but does not specify the process. When the people regain sovereign power, they can decide to exercise power directly or have senators represent them.
Section 7 states that whenever no provision under the constitution is applicable to any case, it shall be decided in accordance with constitutional practices under a democratic government with the King as Head of State.
It depends on the interpretation of the section, Mr Akanat said.
If the interpretation suggests the Senate speaker must work on the issue but later fails to do so, the public will apply pressure on the speaker, he said.
Meanwhile, Democrat Party deputy leader Ong-art Klampaiboon yesterday lashed out at caretaker Justice Minister Chaikasem Nitisiri for his comment that Ms Yingluck did not violate the constitution in her transfer of National Security Council chief Thawil Pliensri.
The Constitutional Court last week accepted to rule on the status of Ms Yingluck over the transfer order she issued for Mr Thawil.
The petition contends that Ms Yingluck violated Section 266 (2) and (3) and Section 286 when she transferred Mr Thawil to be a prime ministerial adviser in 2011. It asks the court to rule if she must leave her post as stated in Section 182.
Section 266 bans MPs and senators from using their posts to interfere in the work of state officials or in their transfer for personal gain or for interest of others while Section 268 says the ban in
Section 266 applies to the prime minister unless he or she performs in accordance
with policies addressed in parliament. Section 182 says the premier must leave office if there is a breach of Section 268.
Mr Chaikasem earlier said the prime minister has authority to transfer Mr Thawil in line with the conditions in Section 268 of the constitution.
Mr Ong-art said Mr Thawil’s transfer did not comply with the section because the Supreme Administrative Court had clearly ruled Ms Yingluck failed to perform in accordance with policies addressed in parliament.
The Supreme Administrative Court ruled the transfer process was unusually hasty and was an attempt to find a position for former national police chief Wichean Potephosree so the government could appoint its own man to the police chief’s job, he said.
Mr Ong-art said the transfer was not for the benefit of the state in line with policies declared in parliament.
He said Mr Chaikasem is trying to discredit the Constitutional Court because he knows it will be difficult to defend the premier when the Administrative Court’s ruling in the case is passed on.