Thailand’s Constitutional Court has removed Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin from office on August 14, 2024, citing an ethical violation in his cabinet appointment. The court ruled with a narrow 5-4 majority that Srettha breached regulations by appointing Pichit Chuenban, a lawyer convicted of contempt of court in 2008, to his cabinet.Pichit Chuenban had served a six-month prison sentence in 2008 for attempting to bribe a judge with $55,000 in cash. Although Pichit had already served his term, the court deemed his behavior ‘dishonest’ and ruled that Srettha had violated the constitution by appointing him as a minister.This decision marks the fourth time in 16 years that the Constitutional Court has removed a Thai premier, highlighting the ongoing political instability in the country. The ruling not only removes Srettha from office but also dismisses his entire cabinet, requiring parliament to convene to elect a new prime minister.Srettha, who had been in power for less than a year, stated that he would respect the court’s decision. The case against him was brought by a group of 40 former senators.In the interim, Deputy Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai is expected to serve as caretaker prime minister until a new leader is approved by parliament. This development comes just a week after the same court ordered the dissolution of the opposition Move Forward Party, further shaking up Thai politics.The frequent court interventions and coups have raised concerns about the stability of Thailand’s democracy and its impact on the country’s economy, which is already facing challenges due to weak exports and high household debt.
Key points
- Thailand’s Constitutional Court removed PM Srettha Thavisin for appointing a convicted lawyer to his cabinet.
- This is the fourth time in 16 years that the court has removed a Thai premier, highlighting political instability.
- The entire cabinet has been dismissed, and parliament must convene to elect a new prime minister.
Contradictions👾Some sources report that Pichit Chuenban was convicted of contempt of court, while others state he was convicted of bribery.
This discrepancy may be due to the nature of his offense, which involved attempting to bribe a judge, leading to a contempt of court charge.
