A Constitutional Court judge is under fire for appearing to claim credit for the court’s decision to disband the election-winning Move Forward Party earlier this month.
Critics aimed their comments at Udom Sittiwirattham for remarks he made at a seminar on the court’s role in protecting people’s rights and freedoms in Surat Thani on Aug 15.
He said Move Forward Party MPs should thank him because they were able to raise millions of baht in donations in a couple of days after the party was dissolved on Aug 7 and its members regrouped as the People’s Party (PP).
The judge was responding to criticism that the dissolution of political parties should not happen because it could weaken democratic institutions.
The charter court has dissolved dozens of parties over the past two decades, most of them minor and often on technical grounds. But it has also dissolved major parties including Thai Rak Thai and one of its successors, as well as Move Forward and its predecessor, Future Forward.
On Thursday People’s Party (PP) list MP Chulapong Yukate said the judge’s remark may have been sarcastic, but people could question his ethics for making it. Customarily, judges are not supposed to comment on cases in public.
Wiroj Lakkhanaadisorn, another PP list MP, urged Judge Udom to read the code of conduct for judges and said he did not think his fellow Constitutional Court judges would support his actions.
Former election commissioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn said the code of conduct for Constitutional Court judges prohibited them from dishonouring their positions and being prejudiced against people, and required them to respect human dignity.
Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, a law lecturer at Thammasat University, wrote on Facebook that he had never heard any judge speaking of a defendant in a manner that could be viewed as sarcastic. Constitutional Court judges’ code of conduct required them to be impartial, he wrote.
Tongthong Chandransu, a former adviser to the prime minister and law lecturer, wrote on Facebook that judges must remain calm after rulings to confirm that they ruled without prejudice.
In the Aug 15 discussion in Surat Thani, Judge Udom, 70, also questioned the legality of the donations received by the People’s Party, as it had not been officially renamed. The party has raised more than 25 million baht and signed up more than 50,000 members since it came into being on Aug 9.
Mr Udom said he had learned that the party was using the bank account of the Thin Kakao Chaovilai Party, to which all its MPs had moved and then renamed, to receive the donations.
He also said that the court had disbanded many political parties because they violated laws.
Apparently referring to the dissolution of Move Forward, Judge Udom said the court saw clearly what the new-generation party was doing. Its ruling, he said, elaborated on the possibility of the final consequences of its activities.
Supporters of dissolved political parties focused only on criticising their disbandment and ignored the reasons behind the decisions, the judge said on Aug 15.
Move Forward won the May 14 general election last year but its attempts to change Section 112 of the Criminal Code, the lese-majeste law, cost it a chance to form a coalition government.
The same issue led to its dissolution this month as the Constitutional Court found the party guilty of jeopardising the constitutional monarchy and national security.
Constitutional Court judge Udom Sittiwirattham, 70, was reported to have remarked that Move Forward MPs should thank him because the dissolution ruling led to millions of baht in donations for its successor party. (Photo: Constitutional Court)
