The Removal of permanent secretary for justice Kittipong Kittayarak was a "crisis containment" by the caretaker government, unmoved by possible mass removal of the entire cabinet as early as Wednesday, a legal expert said.
"This is crisis management," said Verapat Pariyawong, best known as a political commentator.
Kittipong: Now an adviser at the PM's office
"I think the government saw appropriateness (of transferring a senior official whereas it is only a caretaker government) as less relevant than the looming prospects."
In comments to the Bangkok Post on Tuesday, Mr Verapat said moving the pro-opposition permanent secretary was clearly in anticipation of a decision by the Constitutional Court to dismiss the entire cabinet. That could put Mr Kittipong in charge of the justice department, which would have no minister.
But Mr Verapat said he was personally opposed to the Constitutional Court dismissing either caretaker Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra or the whole cabinet.
To remove Ms Yingluck, Mr Verapat said, there should be at least three legal conditions:
1. She transferred National Security Council (NSC) secretary general Thawil Pliensri without authority, and,
2. She did it for her own benefit or the benefit of certain groups, while,
3. Acting against the public interests.
He pointed out the Supreme Administrative Court had already ruled that Ms Yingluck had the authority to remove Mr Thawil but erred in not providing a clear explanation.
The Supreme Administrative Court also did not rule she had made the transfer for personal gains, he said.
Even though the ruling by the Supreme Administrative Court does not have any official standing with the Constitutional Court, the latter should take heed of the ruling. The Constitutional Court should take care not to contradict its administrative counterpart and threaten the integrity of the Thai legal system, said Mr Verapat.
Since the December dissolution of parliament, Ms Yingluck is only a caretaker, and not a full prime minister, so the Constitutional Court actually has nothing to consider, he said.
Article 181 of the constitution article 181 was meant to keep the caretaker premier performing duty alongside the caretaker cabinet so if the court still wanted her removed, the removal could be given to an individual capacity only and not the whole caretaker cabinet, he said.
The Constitutional Court should bear in mind that in 2008 it only removed the late premier Samak Subdaravej, not the whole cabinet.
"Most importantly, the court should consider its decision could be crucial in preventing bloodshed," he said. The court must not rule against the constitutional spirit. Political problems need a political solution."
Mr Verapat recommended having reform and elections together, without without presenting one as more important.
"If the court rules that the caretaker government can no longer perform its duties, we will be left without any rules and regulations, and any groups could compete to snatch power from each other with violence."