Court acted outside its powers, says Nitirat
Play
The Nitirat group yesterday called for the dissolution of the Constitution Court, reasoning it committed a constitutional offence by empowering itself to hear the case while bypassing the Office of the Attorney General.
The group insisted the current Constitution did not allow the court to suspend or delay the charter amendment – and it also disapproved of the court’s decision that it had jurisdiction to hear the case without submitting it to the Attorney General.
The Nitirat group believed the court’s ruling was unconstitutional because it extended the court’s jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution stipulates.
The group also believed the court had come about undemocratically and did not link up with the power of the people. The group proposed that a campaign to collect 50,000 signatures be started to appoint a new Constitution Court.
“The Constitution Court has empowered itself to control charter amendment and this is not right,’’ said Worajet Pakirat, a lecturer at Thammasat University’s Faculty of Law and a member of Nitirat.
He believed Parliament could vote on the third reading to amend the Constitution after the House reconvenes on August 1.
He disagreed with comments made by the opposition that the House cannot vote on the third reading, taking recourse to the court’s decision on Friday.
Worajet argued that the court only made suggestions.
Worajet supported the court’s statement that a public referendum should be held over charter amendment but insisted the charter writers do not have the right to draft a new Constitution without a public hearing. He said there are five options regarding the charter amendment: 1. When the House reconvenes on August 1, call a vote on charter amendment on the third reading; 2. Allow the charter amendment to be voted against; 3. Hold a public referendum; 4. Amend Article 68 over independent agencies, and 5. Go back to square one.
He said he supported the first option, which is to vote on the third reading. He denied he has received benefits from fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, saying he has never met or known Thaksin.
