It was a scene of somber consideration and thoughtful discussion, as leader of the Move Forward Party (MFP), Pita Limjaroenrat, was seen huddling with his fellow MPs during the combined House and Senate meeting on July 19th – here dedicated to the consideration of his re-nomination for prime minister. This news front page image captured a moment that was about to take a tumultuous turn in Thailand’s political landscape. (Photo: Chanat Katanyu)
A crucial development emerged on Monday when the Ombudsman took a pivotal step, making a request to the Constitutional Court to instruct the parliament to delay the subsequent prime ministerial vote. The proposed delay culminates as a response to a number of complaints revolving around the renounced re-nomination of the MFP leader, Pita Limjaroenrat. The man at the helms of the situation was Pol Lt Col Keerop Kritteeranont, the Secretary-General of the Office of the Ombudsman who reported the receipt of 17 complaints objecting the parliament’s decision. The objections cited the rejection of Limjaroenrat’s renomination as an infringement on their constitutional rights.
The complaints painted a complex picture with members of the public and of the parliament voicing grievances. Amongst suggested solutions was the proposition for the Constitutional Court to suspend the imminent parliamentary vote, slated for Thursday, until a ruling could be established. In a proactive move, the Ombudsman requested the Constitutional Court to delay the House and the Senate voting on the prime ministerial candidate in anticipation of a judicial verdict. This measure was proposed in order to avoid potential future complications that may not be easy to reverse.
Earlier on the same day, MFP Secretary-General Chaithawat Tulanon revealed that a formal request had been made to the Ombudsman, asking the Constitutional Court to determine whether the re-nomination of Limjaroenrat was permissible. Further substantiating the situation, MFP MP Panyarat Pusitanon of Nonthaburi, along with 16 other MFP MPs filing a collective complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman.
The political landscape witnessed a significant upheaval on July 19 when the parliament dismissed Limjaroenrat’s re-nomination by a majority vote, citing a procedural issue. Voicing their contention, opposition groups stated that parliamentary regulation 41, which prohibits the reconsideration of a previously rejected motion during the same session, extends to Limjaroenrat’s re-nomination.
Despite the controversy, supporters of Limjaroenrat voiced strong disagreement, asserting that his nomination did not fall under general motions, hence rendering regulation 41 inapplicable. The persistent debate saw a progressive development on Monday as 115 legal scholars from 19 institutions stepped up to voice dissent against the parliamentary resolution passed on July 19 to block Pita Limjaroenrat’s re-nomination. This proclamation amplified the cogency of the unfolding political saga, making it a time to closely observe the elements in play.
Be First to Comment