Constitutional Court sets December 24 for hearing in case against Phumtham and Tawee over alleged interference in senate probe

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2025

The Constitutional Court will hold a witness hearing on December 24, 2025, in the case accusing Phumtham and Tawee of using the DSI to interfere in the Senate election probe

On November 19, 2025, the Constitutional Court scheduled a witness hearing for December 24, 2025, in the case filed by senators seeking a ruling on whether former Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Phumtham Wechayachai and former Justice Minister Pol Col Tawee Sodsong should lose their ministerial status over alleged interference in the Election Commission’s (EC) investigation into the 2024 Senate election.

Accusation: using DSI to influence or control the EC

The petition argues that both ministers violated Section 170(3) in conjunction with Section 42 of the Constitution, claiming their decision to categorise certain criminal offences as special cases under the Special Case Investigation Act (2004), Section 21(1)(2) was an act of interference, intimidation and domination over the EC.

Senators allege that the two ministers used the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) as a tool to pressure the EC and senators, violating the principles of separation of powers and the rule of law.

The actions, they argue, amount to a breach of constitutional integrity, failing to meet the ethical standards required under Sections 160(4) and 160(5), which could lead to the termination of their ministerial status under Section 170(1)(4).

Court sets hearing for December 24

After deliberation, the Constitutional Court agreed to summon witnesses and scheduled the hearing for Wednesday, December 24, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. at the Court’s hearing chamber.
Attendance will be permitted on an individual basis.

Request for judge recusal rejected

Before accepting the case, Sarawut Songsivilai, a Constitutional Court judge, requested to recuse himself on the grounds that the Senate had recently approved him for a new term.
However, the panel rejected his request, ruling that the matter had no bearing on the case, citing Sections 33 and 34 of the 2018 Organic Act on Constitutional Court Procedures.