A group of lawyers and university law lecturers have criticised the Constitutional Court's recent rulings to dissolve the Move Forward Party (MFP) and dismiss Srettha Thavisin as prime minister.
The group, comprising 134 law experts, released a statement critical of the court for allegedly overstepping its power, which could potentially undermine the country's system of checks and balances.
The statement refers to the two rulings: one made on Aug 7, in which the Constitutional Court ordered the MFP to be disbanded for attempting to subvert the constitutional monarchy and 11 party executives to be banned from politics for ten years. The other was passed on Aug 14 against Mr Srettha for appointing ex-convict Pichit Chuenban as a cabinet minister.
The experts said they disagreed with both rulings, which they attributed to the court's interpretation of related laws. This interpretation is inconsistent with the laws' basic principle and could endanger the rule of democracy.
The legal experts outlined four reasons to counter the rulings.
First, they maintained that the court may have overstretched its authority, which resulted in the MFP being dissolved, its executives facing a political ban, and Mr Srettha being removed from the premiership. They insisted that if the law was applied to curtail a person's rights, it must be done restrictively and cautiously.
In the MFP case, the court determined its authority goes so far as covering its judgement of crucial issues such as the party's policy administration and legislative amendment power.
In the Srettha case, the court insisted the scope of a prime minister's dishonest and unethical acts extend over their reckless nomination of a person with questionable qualifications, a reference to Mr Pichit, as a cabinet minister.
Second, the Constitutional Court did not permit the accused to fully and fairly present evidence and witnesses in their own defence.
The court accepted certain pieces of evidence and witnesses in the MFP case. However, the court did not allow the party to testify or counter accusations during the proceedings.
Third, by judging the MFP guilty of acting to undermine the constitutional monarchy, the court has expanded its authority beyond its limit and may be deemed to be asserting a role of keeping the lawmakers in check, which obstructs the checks and balances between the legislative, executive and the judicial branches.
Disrupted checks and balances could imperil the protection of people's rights and freedom and the independence of lawmakers in doing their duty, according to the statement.
Lastly, the experts felt the rulings have dented public confidence, both at home and abroad, in the country's legal system and democratic rule.
