The court voted 8 to 6 to reject the petition of the 28 senators, said Paiboon Warahapaiboon, secretary-general of the Office of the Constitution Court.

Pro-democracy movements cried foul over the court’s decision and vowed to campaign for the ouster of the eight judges who voted in favour of Thaksin.

The court said the senators did not provide evidences and documents to prove that Thaksin used to have over 5 per cent of shares in Shin Corp before it was sale to Temasek Holdings and did not show evidences to prove how Thaksin had got involved in the sale of Shin Corp.

The eight judges, who voted to reject the petition were, Phan Jantharaparn, Jumpol na Songkhla, Noppadol Hengcharoen, Manit Witthayatem, Sak Techacharn, Suthee Suthisomboon, Suwan Suwanwecho and Ura Wang-omklang.

On Tuesday, the Constitution Court took delivery of the petition and the senators said on Wednesday that the court was obliged by the Constitution to go ahead with the review.

The 28 senators alleged that Thaksin had an illegal conflict of interest because he still had influence over Shin Corp while making national policy. They said the premier had violated Article 209 of the Constitution and was no longer qualified to hold public office. The article stipulates that a minister must not have influence over the management of any companies.

In mid 2001, the Constitution Court acquitted Thaksin of an assets-concealment charge. The prime minister escaped a five-year ban from politics by an 8-7 vote.

Weng Tojitrakarn, president of the Federation for Democracy, said it was regretful and unacceptable for the court to reach a decision not to review the case.

He said the Constitution Court denied responsibility to prove the allegations against Thaksin.
“It’s unacceptable as the petition is clear. It’s the duty of the court to seek evidences instead of waiting for senators to find evidences,” Weng said.

He said an interview by Thaksin’s son, Panthongtae Shinawatra, that the sale of Shin Corp was an affairs of puyai or senior people was a strong evidence that Thaksin had a decision over the sale.

Weng said he had protested the court by laying black wreath at the court and his group would campaign to pressure the eight judges to resign.

Sunthree Hatthisengkin, a leader of the Network of Khon Kaen People for Democracy, said she was very disappointed in the Constitution Court.

“The people’s section placed a lot of hope on the Constitution Court. It was unbelievable that the court would reject the case,” Suntree said.

“This shows that the state has dominance power over independent organisations. We have been saying all alogn that this government interfered in the works of independent organisations.”
Sujit Boonbonkarn, a former Constitution Court judge, said he did not undestnad why the court refused to review the case.

“It would have done good for both sides had the court agreed to proceed with the review as both sides would have chance to present their information. The people will understand what have happened. Without the review in the court the people will not understand the issue,”Sujit said.

“I would not like to say that this will cause the problem to explode but since the constitutional mechanisms are blocked from being used, the people will increasingly turn to non-Parlaiment mechanisms.”