Web Service
About us
Audio/ Video news
Subscribe now !
Online Sub
Online Adv




Ex-PM challenges top court

Thailand (The Nation) -- Former Prime Minister YingluckShinawatra has again requested the Supreme Court to seek a Constitutional Court ruling on a legal issue involving the case against her of negligence in the management of the rice pledging case, challenging the highest court's decision to reject her previous petition.


In her latest petition, Yingluck said it was beyond the Supreme Court's legal authority to reject her request and pointed out that such an act was against the new Constitution, which came into effect in early April.

The Supreme Court last week rejected Yingluck's request that it seek a Constitutional Court interpretation under the new Constitution of a clause that could affect her case. The negligence case against the former premier stemmed from her government's corruption-plagued rice-pledging scheme.

In turning down Yingluck's request, the court had said that both the prosecution and the defence had been given sufficient opportunities to bring witnesses during the months of hearings that ended last Friday.

In her previous petition, Yingluck had pointed out that Article 235 of the new charter requires the Supreme Court to base its consideration upon the inquiry file of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). She said this contradicted the 1999 law on the court's procedures, which required the court to mainly rely on the report by the relevant NACC committee.

Yingluck's lawyers this week filed her request again with the Supreme Court for a Constitutional Court ruling on the matter.

The highest court has accepted the petition for consideration and is expected to make its decision on August 1 when the ex-PM is scheduled to deliver her closing statement on her case.

The Supreme Court has scheduled August 25 to deliver its verdict on the negligence case against Yingluck.

In her latest petition, viewed by critics as a delaying tactic, Yingluck outlined five reasons why her request for a Constitutional Court ruling was valid.

She pointed out that according to Article 5 of the Constitution – the supreme law of the land – provisions of any law, rule or regulation that are contrary to or inconsistent with the charter “shall be unenforceable”.

Also, Yingluck pointed out that the Supreme Court is required under Article 212 of the new charter to forward her request to the Constitutional Court. The clause states that if any party in a court case objects to a certain provision of law falling under Article 5, and there has been no decision by the Constitutional Court pertaining to the matter, the relevant court shall send its opinion to the Constitutional Court and seek a decision.

“The Supreme Court has no other choice but to seek a decision from the Constitutional Court. Failing to do so would mean failure to follow Article 212 of the Constitution,” Yingluck said in her latest petition.


(Latest Update July 28, 2017)

Newspaper Subscription l Newspaper Advertisement l Online Advertisement l Online Subscription

Vientiane Times Phonpapao Village, Unit 32, Sisattanak District, P.O.Box: 5723 Vientiane, Lao PDR
Tel: (856-21) 336042, 336048, Fax: (856-21) 336041

Copyright © 1999 Vientiane Times Newspaper.