Court: Abhisit's dismissal from army reserve 'justified'

Court: Abhisit's dismissal from army reserve 'justified'

ACM Sukumpol Suwannathat (photo by Kitja Apichonrojarek)
ACM Sukumpol Suwannathat (photo by Kitja Apichonrojarek)

The Civil Court has ruled that former defence minister ACM Sukumpol Suwannathat's order dismissing former prime minister Abhisit Vejajjiva from the army reserve three years ago was legal and justified.

In a decision issued on Tuesday, the court rejected Mr Abhisit's lawsuit requesting that it revoke the order.

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.

Mr Abhisit had instead presented a fake Sor Dor 9 document, issued to males aged 17 and registering  them for the draft, 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 applied successfully for a job as a lecturer at Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy in 1987, a position that gave him the rank of acting sub-lieutenant.

Mr Abhisit clearly lacked the qualifications to apply for the job.

Therefore, the Civil Court rejected Mr Abhisit's request that it revoke ACM Sukumpol's order on the grounds the dismissal was legitimate and justified.

A member of Mr Abhisit's legal team, Paiboon Phonoy, said they would examine the court's ruling before deciding what to do next.

Mr Abhisit unsuccessfully brought a similar case against ACM Sukumpol in the Administrative Court on Nov 12, 2012.

The Administrative Court refused the lawsuit, saying it did not have jurisdiction in the matter because there was a question over the authenticity of the documents involved.


Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (5)