Court gives Chaturon his three passports back
THE CENTRAL Administrative Court yesterday revoked an order by the director-general of the Department of Consular Affairs to cancel the passports of senior Pheu Thai Party politician Chaturon Chaisang on grounds that the order was unlawful and discriminatory.
The verdict is effective retrospectively to August 19, 2015, when the order was issued, according to a court statement.
Chaturon had three passports – two ordinary ones and a diplomatic passport – before the revocation order. He had served in several Cabinet posts including deputy prime minister, justice minister and education minister.
In January last year, the politician petitioned with the court against the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Consular Affairs and its director-general, the foreign minister, permanent secretary for foreign affairs, Royal Thai Police, and the national police chief. He sought a court ruling to revoke the order by the Department of Consular Affairs.
The passports were revoked at the request of the Royal Thai Police on grounds that Chaturon criticised the performance of the post-coup administration and the National Council of Peace and Order (NCPO). Police said he also resisted an NCPO order for him to report over allegations that he instigated chaos and violated laws after attending a political seminar at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Thailand.
Chaturon said in his lawsuit that the revocation of his passports came after he commented on Facebook in May 2015, criticising the |constitution-drafting process and authorities.
His petition said he was not wanted by law, yet was prohibited from leaving the country. Chaturon said that after the 2014 coup, he had obtained permission from junta leader Prayut Chan-o-cha to leave the country on many occasions – to China, Singapore, Japan and Germany – between October 2014 and June 2015.
The politician said there were no good reasons why his passports had to be revoked, and that the order was issued abruptly in a way that he deemed unlawful and discriminatory.
In its verdict, the court agreed that judging from his frequent overseas journeys with no apparent attempts to flee, there were no reasons to revoke Chaturon’s passports. Instead, the revocation severely violated the plaintiff’s basic rights to travel overseas, the court said.
“The benefit of such measure was outweighed by the adverse impacts on the plaintiff,” the verdict said.
