Phumtham Wechayachai (left) and Pol Col Tawee Sodsong. - Photo: The Nation/ANN
BANGKOK: The Constitutional Court ruled that there was no evidence that Phumtham and Tawee ordered the DSI to interfere in the EC’s probe into alleged Senate vote-rigging.
The Constitutional Court met on Wednesday (Jan 21) to vote on a petition filed by a group of senators—most of them aligned with the so-called “blue” bloc—who jointly submitted the complaint through the Senate president.
The petition asked the court to rule, under Section 170 paragraph three in conjunction with Section 82 of the Constitution, whether the ministerial status of Phumtham Wechayachai, then deputy prime minister and defence minister, and Pol Col Tawee Sodsong, then justice minister, should be terminated on an individual basis under Section 170 paragraph one (4) in conjunction with Section 160 (4) and (5).
The complainants alleged the two had interfered with or dominated the duties and powers of the Election Commission (EC) by using the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) as a tool to intervene in the scrutiny of the Senate election—known as the alleged “Senate vote-rigging” case.
They claimed the actions amounted to harassment, pressure, intimidation and undue influence over senators, the legislative branch, in violation of the separation of powers and the rule of law.
Previously, the Constitutional Court ordered Tawee to suspend his duties as justice minister—in his capacity overseeing the DSI and as deputy chair of the Board of Special Case—after the complaint was accepted for consideration.
At 3pm, the court read out its ruling, concluding that the allegations were unsupported by evidence.
- Photo: The Nation/ANN
The court noted the complainants argued that designating the allegations of money laundering and involvement in a secret society as a special case showed the respondents lacked evident integrity, and that they had used their authority to direct the DSI and the Board of Special Case to unlawfully influence investigations and interfere with the EC’s work.
However, the court found the matter arose from members of the public seeking fairness from the Ministry of Justice and was not initiated by the second respondent. It said the respondents had merely informed the DSI to verify facts in accordance with official procedures.
The court stated there were no facts or other evidence indicating either respondent ordered the DSI to use its authority to interfere with the EC’s duties in any way.
From witness testimony—including that of the first respondent and the director-general of the DSI—the court found consistent evidence that the authority to set the agenda for meetings rests with the director-general of the DSI.
It said there was no evidence that the respondents ordered items to be placed on the agenda of the Board of Special Case, nor that they pressed for items to be expedited for consideration at its meetings No. 2/2025 and 3/2025.
The court also found no evidence that the respondents threatened, directed or guided deliberations in a manner constituting interference.
It said the first respondent, as meeting chair, managed proceedings and allowed discussion, while the second respondent asked questions of the secretariat and offered legal views.
The court therefore concluded it could not be established that the two ordered the DSI to accept a special case in order to interfere with the EC’s investigation into the alleged Senate vote-rigging case.
On the allegation that the respondents had planned to propose three officials as members of an inquiry panel, the court found the meeting had unanimously resolved to appoint the panel, and that the claim of planning was supported only by news reports.
Based on these facts, the court said there was no conduct as alleged showing a lack of evident honesty, nor any serious breach of ethical standards, and no constitutional grounds requiring termination of their ministerial status.
It therefore ruled that the ministerial status of both respondents did not terminate on an individual basis. - The Nation/ANN
