Criticism Arises Over Judge’s Controversial Remarks on Party Dissolution and Fundraising
A Constitutional Court judge is facing backlash for suggesting that members of the disbanded Move Forward Party should be grateful for the court’s decision to dissolve the party earlier this month. Judge Udom Sittiwirattham made these remarks during a seminar on August 15 in Surat Thani, where he discussed the court’s role in protecting rights and freedoms.
He noted that the dissolution had unexpectedly enabled the newly formed People’s Party (PP) to raise millions in donations shortly after its establishment, following the court’s ruling on August 7. Critics argue that such comments raise ethical concerns, given that judges are traditionally expected to refrain from public commentary on ongoing cases.
People’s Party list MP Chulapong Yukate commented on the judge’s statement, suggesting it could be seen as sarcastic and questioned the integrity of the judicial system. Fellow MP Wiroj Lakkhanaadisorn urged Judge Udom to review the code of conduct that governs judicial behavior, expressing doubt that other Constitutional Court judges would endorse his remarks.
Former election commissioner Somchai Srisutthiyakorn highlighted that judges are required to uphold their dignity and should not exhibit bias against individuals. Law lecturer Prinya Thaewanarumitkul criticized the judge’s sarcastic tone, asserting that impartiality is a fundamental principle for Constitutional Court judges.
In his remarks, Judge Udom also raised questions about the legality of the donations received by the People’s Party, given that it had not yet officially renamed itself. Since its formation on August 9, the party has reportedly secured over 25 million baht in donations and signed more than 50,000 new members.
The judge stated that the party had utilized the bank account of the Thin Kakao Chaovilai Party to process its donations. He emphasized that the court has disbanded numerous political parties over the years for legal violations, asserting that the court’s decisions are based on careful evaluations of each party’s actions.
Referring to the dissolution of Move Forward, Judge Udom indicated that the court had made its ruling based on the party’s activities and their potential impact on the constitutional monarchy and national security. The dissolution followed the party’s failed attempts to alter Section 112 of the Criminal Code, a move that ultimately hindered its ability to form a coalition government after winning the May 14 general election.
