Why worry about small fry when the 'big fish' is in your net?
Play
The National Legislative Assembly (NLA) has shown a tendency to reject impeachment cases against certain politicians, and the reason might be that the assembly does not have what it takes for real action.
Legal disputes in relation to the impeachment of former Parliament president Somsak Kiatsuranon and his deputy Nikom Wairatpanich emerged when NLA members wondered if they had the authority to go ahead with the proceedings.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) found the two politicians guilty of violating the 2007 Constitution for trying to push through an amendment that would change the make-up of the Senate. The two politicians can be considered “wrongdoers”, it claimed, as their action would have affected the country as a whole.
Hence many are wondering why the government and the National Council for Peace and Order are refusing to do anything, especially since the 2014 provisional constitution that they helped draft has no provisions for impeachment.
Yet the very people who had a hand in writing the interim charter, such as NLA President Pornpetch Wichitcholchai and Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam, have voiced uncertainty about whether the NLA has the authority to go head with the proceedings.
The cases against Somsak and Nikom are important, as they will set a standard for another key case – the one against former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra.
Many agencies have been trying to push the case against the two politicians, insisting that the NLA has the authority to go ahead. Somsak, Nikom and their supporters, on the other hand, are trying to stop this by insisting that the case is related to the 2007 Constitution, which is now defunct.
However, those who want to see proceedings against Yingluck don’t have to wait too long. After two weeks of consideration, the NLA president finally agreed to add Yingluck’s case to the assembly’s meeting agenda for November 12. The NACC wants Yingluck to be impeached over her alleged failure to stop corruption in the rice-pledging scheme.
Yet the NLA is still not able to decide whether it will consider the impeachment case against Somsak and Nikom, and is expected to make a decision on the subject this Thursday.
NLA’s indecisiveness might imply that the legislators would much rather go for the “big fish” they’ve always been hoping to net and are willing to set the “small fry” free. Also, dropping cases against small fry may please several parties and may be seen as another step towards reconciliation.
Other than this, the NLA may be dithering on Somsak’s and Nikom’s case because some NLA members are afraid of being sued.
Also, the three cases – those of Yingluck, Somsak and Nikom – are not necessarily similar.
Somsak’s and Nikom’s actions allegedly violated the now-defunct 2007 Constitution, while Yingluck’s actions allegedly violated Article 178 of that Constitution, Article 11 (1) of the State Administration Act (1991) and Article 58 of the Constitution Organic Law on Anti-Corruption, making it difficult for her to get away from the legal standpoint.
Now, the only thing we should watch for is whether the NLA can withstand public pressure in relation to Somsak’s and Nikom’s case and continue refusing to make a decision.
