Court revokes Abhisit's army dismissal

Court revokes Abhisit's army dismissal

The Appeal Court yesterday revoked former defence minister ACM Sukumpol Suwannathat's retroactive order dismissing former prime minister Abhisit Vejajjiva from the army reserve four years ago.

Abhisit: Stripped of military rank in 2012

It overturned last year's ruling by the Civil Court.

ACM Sukumpol on Nov 8, 2012 dismissed Mr Abhisit from the army's reserve retroactively, stripping him of his military rank and army service record on the grounds he did not go through the conscription process as required by law.

According to the Civil Court, Mr Abhisit had instead presented a fake Sor Dor 9 military registration form, which is issued to males aged 17, to the conscription officer of Nakhon Nayok. Not aware that Mr Abhisit had dodged conscription, the Nakhon Nayok conscription officer issued him a Sor Dor 3 document, which registered Mr Abhisit as an army reservist.

Mr Abhisit also did not have the required Sor Dor 41 document to show that he had been exempted from conscription while studying abroad, the court said.

The court also found Mr Abhisit had used the false documents when he successfully applied for a job as a lecturer at Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy in 1987, a position that gave him the rank of acting sub-lieutenant. The court found Mr Abhisit lacked the qualifications for the job.

The Appeal Court yesterday said those who are subject to disciplinary punishment by the armed forces must be either active service personnel or conscription officers, citing the 1933 Soldier Discipline Act.

Considering disciplinary action and enforcing it must be done when that person is serving to prevent the officer from causing further damage, the court said. If that person has left military service, he or she should be unable to cause more damage.

In this case, Mr Abhisit faced the disciplinary punishment 23 years after he left military service.

Retroactively considering disciplinary action and enforcing it against Mr Abhisit is not legally binding, the court said.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (7)