Red rally doesn't worry court

Red rally doesn't worry court

The Constitution Court is not worried about a planned mass rally by red shirts against the nine court judges on Wednesday, according to court spokesman Kamol Sotethiphoka.

The court's chairman has not given any special directive to deal with the planned protest and in any case it was the duty of police to ensure law and order, he said on Saturday.

Mr Kamol said the red-shirts had the constitutional right to rally against the court judges.

He expected the protesters would refrain from using violent means to pressure the court.

Some red-shirt members of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) earlier threatened to "capture" the judges, whom they accuse of attempting to undermine the legislative branch.

They oppose the court's decision to accept a petition which argues that the charter amendment bill passed on first reading in parliament was unconstitutional.

The Constitution Court has asked 312 MPs and senators who supported the amendments to explain their stance.

Members of the governing Pheu Thai Party responded by saying they would refuse to recognise the court's authority.

The court subsequently gave the MPs and senators a new deadline of May 15 to submit arguments in favour of their position.

Pheu Thai claims the court's decision to accept the original complaint interfered with the work of the legislative branch.

The court would proceed to consider the petition against the rewrite of Section 68 after the deadline, with or without the explanation from the politicians, said Constitution Court spokesman Pimol Thampitakpong.

"If they don't submit the explanation by the extended deadline, it means they have no objections to raise and the court will follow due process," he said.

Section 68 of the 2007 charter allows people to complain directly to the court over acts deemed harmful to the constitutional monarchy. The amendment proposed by Pheu Thai would require complaints to be made first with public prosecutors.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (32)