A Constitutional Court judge has come under public criticism for joking about the dissolution of Move Forward Party (MFP), prompting calls that he be subject to an ethics investigation.

A video clip released on 21 August showed Constitutional Court Justice Udom Sittiwirattham cracking jokes about the MFP dissolution during a seminar on the Court’s role in protecting people’s rights and freedoms, according to a Matichon report.

In the clip, the judge asserted that the dissolution did not cause any trouble for the party at all, adding that MFP should thank him because without him, its successor political organisation, the People’s Party, would not have been able to get 20-30 million baht in donations within a few days of formation. The video went viral on social media and public criticism swiftly followed.  Many felt that it was improper for the judge to make such remarks in public.

People’s Party MP Chulapong Yukate questioned the judge’s ethics, expressing concern that his remarks would increase public scepticism about the Court’s ability to pass judgement on the ethical conduct of others. MP Rangsiman Rome added that the party dissolution should not be treated as a joke as the Court’s ruling did indeed cause damage, both to MFP and the voters.

Thairath reported that People’s Party leader Nutthaphong Ruengpanyawut and Pheu Thai Party MP Adisorn Piengkes filed a motion during the parliamentary session on Thursday (22 August) in response to the judge’s action, requesting an investigation into whether he violated ethical standards.

Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, a legal professor from the Faculty of Law at Thammasat University, asserted on his Facebook page that Constitutional Court ethical standards require judges to be impartial and respect people’s rights and freedom, adding that he had previously never seen any judge mentioning a defendant in such a sarcastic manner.

Article 28 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judge should not give a speech, lecture, teach, or participate in a seminar, debate, or express opinion to the public that may affect the judge’s performance of duty or integrity.

According to Prinya, in cases where a judge is alleged to have violated ethical conduct, a petition must be filed to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) to conduct further investigation. If the NACC finds credible evidence that the judge ‘severely’ violated ethical conduct, the case will be forwarded to the Supreme Court. 

Udom Sittiwirattham