The Constitutional Court has voted by a 5-4 majority to disqualify Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin for violation of ethical standards by appointing to a cabinet position a person who has a prior criminal conviction.

All remaining ministerial positions in the Srettha administration are simultaneously terminated. However, the current ministers will continue to serve as acting ministers until new ones are appointed, and during this time, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Commerce Phumtham Wechayachai will serve as Acting Prime Minister. The Acting PM has the power to dissolve parliament.

The lower house now has to elect a new PM from the candidates nominated by parties ahead of last year’s election.  Parties must have at least 25 MPs in parliament in order to nominate candidates.

There are 7 qualified candidates from 5 parties.

1. Paetongtarn Shinawatra from the Pheu Thai Party
2. Chaikasem Nitisiri from the Pheu Thai Party
3. Anutin Charnvirakul from the Bhumjaithai Party
4. Prawit Wongsuwan from Palang Pracharath Party
5. Prayut Chan-o-cha from the United Thai Nation Party
6. Pirapan Salirathavibhaga from the United Thai Nation Party
7. Jurin Laksanawisit from the Democrat Party

In May, a petition was filed under Articles 160 and 170 of the Constitution by a group of 40 then-caretaker senators against Srettha, asking the Constitutional Court to remove him for appointing a person with a prior criminal charge to a cabinet position. The petition claimed that the PM knowingly violated the Constitution and committed an unethical act by giving lawyer Pichit Chuenban a Cabinet post as Minister Attached to the PM’s Office during a cabinet shuffle in April. The former senators claimed that Pichit lacked integrity and his appointment violated the ethical standards required by the Constitution for those who hold ministerial positions. The petition sought the removal of both Srettha and Pichit from their respective roles. Pichit resigned from the position shortly after the petition was filed and the Court dropped the case against him, proceeding only with the case against Srettha.

Article 160 of the Constitution stipulates that a minister’s behaviour must not seriously violate ethical standards, and a minister cannot have been sentenced to imprisonment. Article 170 stipulates that ministerial positions will be terminated upon being disqualified or prohibited under Article 160.

Pichit is a former lawyer with a close relationship with the Shinawatra family. He was entrusted with countering lawsuits against Thaksin. During the former PM Yingluck Shinawatra administration, he served as both an MP and leader of the legal team to represent her in the rice-pledging scheme scandal.

Pichi was jailed for contempt of court in 2008 and had his law license suspended for 5 years after he allegedly attempted to bribe Supreme Court officials with 2 million baht hidden in a paper bag while he was representing former PM Thaksin Shinawatra and his ex-wife Potjaman Na Pombejra in the Ratchadaphisek land case. Thaksin was sentenced to 2 years in prison in 2008. Pichit and two of his colleagues were given 6-month jail terms.

According to his testimony, Srettha claimed that he had been a businessman with no experience in law or political science, making him unaware that Pichit was disqualified from being a cabinet minister due to his prior criminal conviction. The Court argued that this claim was not credible, stating that Pichit’s action was widely known among the general public and the Lawyers Council.

The Court ruled to remove Srettha from the position with 5 votes in favour and 4 against, claiming that he lacked integrity and had violated ethical standards.

How many PMs have been disqualified during their tenure by the Constitutional Court?

1. Thaksin Shinawatra

The former PM Thaksin faced a dismissal case in 2001, under the 1997 Constitution, when he was indicted for failing to fully declare his assets when he served as a deputy PM in 1997. At the time, the Court voted 8 out of 15 not to disqualify him from the position (4 of the 8 because they ruled him not guilty while the other 4 said that the court had no jurisdiction, which is not really the same thing as saying ‘not guilty’).

2. Samak Sundaravej

The Constitutional Court, under the 2007 Constitution, ruled to dismiss Samak from the position with 5 in favour and 4 against, after it found him guilty of violating the law by accepting payment (he claimed ‘reimbursement of expenses’) for hosting a television cooking show in 2008.  They said this made him an employee of the TV company, a definition of ‘employee’ that is hard to find in Thai labour law and which would make every taxi driver the temporary ‘employee’ of the passenger.

3. Yingluck Shinawatra

In 2014, the Court ruled by 5 to 4 votes to disqualify PM Yingluck for unlawfully transferring National Security Council’s Secretary-General Thawil Pliensri, allegedly to benefit the Pheu Thai Party. The authority of the PM to order such transfers was never questioned, but Thawil, a political opponent of the Shinawatra family, didn’t want to move and his replacement smacked of nepotism.

4. Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha

Prayut faced 3 petitions for dismissal but was acquitted on all 3. The first case involved his dual role as both PM and the head of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) as the Constitution stipulates that a PM must not hold any other official position.

The second case in 2020 accused him of violating the Constitution by living rent-free in his military house despite being retired, while the law prohibits a PM from receiving special benefits from government agencies.

The last was exceeding the maximum 8-year tenure as PM.  He was PM for 9 years and 92 days, but the Court argued that his tenure should be counted from when the 8-year limit was introduced in the 2017 constitution, not from when he declared himself PM after staging a coup in 2014.