July 1 has been marked as a critical day as the Constitutional Court is scheduled to convene and potentially deliberate on the high-profile petition filed against Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, following the release of a leaked audio clip of her conversation with Hun Sen, President of Cambodia’s Senate.
This session was rescheduled from late June, due to the court’s commitment to the Board of Members Meeting (BoMM). Notably, internal movements indicate that the Secretary-General of the Constitutional Court has already circulated the July 1 meeting agenda to the judges.
A closely watched agenda item for the July 8 meeting will involve updates on a separate petition filed by Natthaporn Toprayoon regarding the Senate selection process, which the Court referred to the Office of the Attorney-General for further input.
This fuels speculation that the Constitutional Court may address the petition against Paetongtarn during its July 1 meeting. The complaint, submitted by a group of"blue-shirt senators" through the Senate President, calls for a ruling under Section 170 (paragraph three), in conjunction with Section 160 (4) and (5) of the Constitution, to determine whether Paetongtarn should be disqualified from office due to the content of the leaked audio.
The petition also requests the Court to suspend Paetongtarn from official duties pending its ruling, under Section 82 paragraph two of the Constitution and Section 71 of the Organic Act on the Procedures of the Constitutional Court (2018), along with Clause 40(8) of the Constitutional Court Rules (2019).
Should the court consider the petition on July 1, three possible scenarios may unfold:
1. Postponement – The court may choose not to deliberate on the petition yet, citing the short timeframe since the Senate President submitted the matter just two weeks prior.
2. Proceeding with review – The court could formally take up the case, resulting in one of several actions: accepting the petition, rejecting it, or requesting further information from relevant agencies or individuals.
3. Dismissal – The court may review the complaint and determine that it lacks sufficient grounds, thereby rejecting it outright.
Phumtham Wechayachai, a key figure in the government, acknowledged that the future of Prime Minister Paetongtarn remains uncertain following a leaked audio clip of her conversation with Hun Sen. The audio has led to heightened political tension, with calls from conservative academics and senators for her to step down.
In light of this, Phumtham explained that during recent Cabinet reshuffles, Paetongtarn retained the Minister of Culture position as a precaution, in case the Constitutional Court accepts the petition against her and temporarily suspends her from office.
Kaewsan Atibodhi, a prominent conservative academic who has been influential in Thai politics over the past two decades, called for action from independent bodies, including the Constitutional Court and the Election Commission (EC). He stressed that the evidence was clear, particularly regarding the accusations against Thaksin Shinawatra, the former Prime Minister.
On the other hand, Charan Phakdeethanakul, a former Constitutional Court judge, told Nation TV that if he were still a judge, he would order Paetongtarn to suspend her duties immediately for further investigation into the leaked audio.
“This case is similar to the one with former Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha, who was temporarily suspended due to a conflict with another country over disputed territory,” he said. “Without temporary measures, the political crisis could escalate, weakening national unity.”
When the conservative network agreed that Paetongtarn's position as Prime Minister should end, it put immense pressure on the Constitutional Court once again.
On June 24, Nakarin Mektrirat, President of the Constitutional Court, gave an interview in which he admitted to feeling"concerned" about the case but emphasised that, since the Court is in this position, it must proceed with its duties.
Regarding the consideration of the leaked audio clip case on July 1, Nakhonrin said:
“It is possible, but we must first ensure that the judicial panel has reviewed all the documents thoroughly. If the case proceeds, it could go one of two ways: either accept or reject the petition. As for whether the Court will make a decision on July 1, we don’t yet know. We must complete the document review first and ensure the panel has all 9 judges present.”
He continued:
“If the Constitutional Court decides to consider the case on July 1, it will not necessarily result in an immediate suspension of duties. We will have to assess whether suspending the Prime Minister’s duties will cause any harm. There have been cases where we’ve accepted petitions but did not order suspensions.”
The three possible scenarios are outlined, along with opinions from academics and the conservative network on this matter. The final decision, which will determine whether Paetongtarn will continue serving as Prime Minister, remains to be seen.
